criterionforum.org

domino harvey wrote:

TMDaines wrote:The Martain is a comedy? I've not seen the film but could it even be described as light-hearted? How does that film end up there and Mad Max end up as a drama?

The studio submitted it as a Comedy to the Globes ensure they'd get in (and probably win). It's category fraud, but it happens.

Absolutely category fraud, but the film did have my favorite in-joke of the year...

Spoiler

Sean Bean's character excitedly proclaiming "I know who Gandalf is!" when the code name is announced.

The Oscars exist for Hollywood to reward themselves and to bolster whatever image or narrative they want to put forth for that year. Some foreign films slip in outside of the dedicated category as a way for Hollywood to appear inclusive and hip, but that's how it goes with non-foreign films too. The Oscars are not about quality, and never have been.

I did think Johnny Depp would get a nom for Black Mass; nice to see Paul Dano get a nom for Love & Mercy; and Mark Ruffalo gets a nom! For Infinitely Polar Bear! (Seriously, what is that movie?) Hopefully they seat Jennifer Lawrence and Amy Schumer at the same table.

domino harvey wrote:The Oscars exist for Hollywood to reward themselves and to bolster whatever image or narrative they want to put forth for that year. Some foreign films slip in outside of the dedicated category as a way for Hollywood to appear inclusive and hip, but that's how it goes with non-foreign films too. The Oscars are not about quality, and never have been.

This, of course. And also, if the Globes or Oscars were to slip in a picture/director award for a foreign film, it would be for something in their wheelhouse like Son of Saul, not something divisive and artsy like The Assassin.

Artsy is absolutely a word that describes Son of Saul though.

I can understand people caring about the Oscars - to the general public, for better and for worse, it carries a lot of weight that can't be shaken no matter how corrupted the process can be - but why do people care about the Golden Globes? Even for wagering purposes, it hasn't been a reliable barometer for the Oscars, and yet it's now getting more coverage than ever before.

hearthesilence wrote:but why do people care about the Golden Globes? Even for wagering purposes, it hasn't been a reliable barometer for the Oscars, and yet it's now getting more coverage than ever before.

Literally the only reason I have ever tuned in for the Golden Globes was for Amy and Tina, and it's from sheer inertia that it's still on my radar. It probably still exists because it's good marketing.

hearthesilence wrote:I can understand people caring about the Oscars - to the general public, for better and for worse, it carries a lot of weight that can't be shaken no matter how corrupted the process can be - but why do people care about the Golden Globes? Even for wagering purposes, it hasn't been a reliable barometer for the Oscars, and yet it's now getting more coverage than ever before.

I understand and would more or less agree with the sentiment, however, I think it's a dated attitude. Many years ago I was surprised to learn that most of my undergraduate (film) students, don't make a distinction among all the various awards shows, not viewing the Oscars as more important or consequential than the Golden Globes or the others.

There's a boatload of awards shows broadcast for music, film, television and all of the above. I think growing up exposed to this increasing barrage of self-congratulation has lowered the general opinion of the awards these shows hand out and generates a perception that awards shows are more about the shows than the awards, the honor of winning an award being somewhere between hollow and inconsequential.

And then there's the issue that the majority of the movie going public doesn't care about most of the films honored year after year -- but I'm very okay with that.

Jeff wrote:

domino harvey wrote:The Oscars exist for Hollywood to reward themselves and to bolster whatever image or narrative they want to put forth for that year. Some foreign films slip in outside of the dedicated category as a way for Hollywood to appear inclusive and hip, but that's how it goes with non-foreign films too. The Oscars are not about quality, and never have been.

This, of course. And also, if the Globes or Oscars were to slip in a picture/director award for a foreign film, it would be for something in their wheelhouse like Son of Saul, not something divisive and artsy like The Assassin.

Has "The Assassin" been divisive among critics and opinion-makers? Perhaps among general audiences it as been divisive, as many find it too slow. Some of the 1-star reviews on IMDB are absolutely hilarious to read. It's currently at 83% on RT, with most of the dissenters again decrying the "slow pace."

Trees wrote:Has "The Assassin" been divisive among critics and opinion-makers? Perhaps among general audiences it as been divisive, as many find it too slow. Some of the 1-star reviews on IMDB are absolutely hilarious to read. It's currently at 83% on RT, with most of the dissenters again decrying the "slow pace."

I'd say it was critically admired overall, if not enthusiastically in most quarters. There were a few prominent critics including A.O. Scott and Richard Brody who were dismissive of it, finding it as Scott said, "ultimately opaque, a lovely, inert object." Critics are largely irrelevant to this discussion though, as they aren't members of The Academy. It's a group of film industry people, with actors forming the bulk of the group. They skew overwhelmingly old, white, American, and unadventurous. The Assassin simply isn't going to be their thing.

Jeff wrote:

Trees wrote:Has "The Assassin" been divisive among critics and opinion-makers? Perhaps among general audiences it as been divisive, as many find it too slow. Some of the 1-star reviews on IMDB are absolutely hilarious to read. It's currently at 83% on RT, with most of the dissenters again decrying the "slow pace."

I'd say it was critically admired overall, if not enthusiastically in most quarters. There were a few prominent critics including A.O. Scott and Richard Brody who were dismissive of it, finding it as Scott said, "ultimately opaque, a lovely, inert object." Critics are largely irrelevant to this discussion though, as they aren't members of The Academy. It's a group of film industry people, with actors forming the bulk of the group. They skew overwhelmingly old, white, American, and unadventurous. The Assassin simply isn't going to be their thing.

Though I agree with you, Jeff, it isn't hard to imagine the film pulling a Cinematography and/or Production Design nod if Weinstein had it rather than Well Go USA. And Well Go or not, a Foreign-Language Film nomination is still at least somewhat likely, though certainly not a given (nothing ever really is in that category).

Raymond Marble wrote:

Jeff wrote:

Trees wrote:Has "The Assassin" been divisive among critics and opinion-makers? Perhaps among general audiences it as been divisive, as many find it too slow. Some of the 1-star reviews on IMDB are absolutely hilarious to read. It's currently at 83% on RT, with most of the dissenters again decrying the "slow pace."

I'd say it was critically admired overall, if not enthusiastically in most quarters. There were a few prominent critics including A.O. Scott and Richard Brody who were dismissive of it, finding it as Scott said, "ultimately opaque, a lovely, inert object." Critics are largely irrelevant to this discussion though, as they aren't members of The Academy. It's a group of film industry people, with actors forming the bulk of the group. They skew overwhelmingly old, white, American, and unadventurous. The Assassin simply isn't going to be their thing.

Though I agree with you, Jeff, it isn't hard to imagine the film pulling a Cinematography and/or Production Design nod if Weinstein had it rather than Well Go USA. And Well Go or not, a Foreign-Language Film nomination is still at least somewhat likely, though certainly not a given (nothing ever really is in that category).

It would be hard to imagine THE ASSASSIN not at least getting a Best Foreign-Language Film nod. It was awarded Best Film of 2015 by BFI’s Sight & Sound magazine, after polling 168 UK and international film critics to name their 5 top films of the year, beating CAROL, MAD MAX, etc.

It's not that hard to imagine, because critics don't pick that either.

You are still allowed to like the film though.

swo17 wrote:It's not that hard to imagine, because critics don't pick that either.

You are still allowed to like the film though.

I guess that's true. How are Best Foreign-Language Films nominated? By the general Academy?

By the submitting country, then shortlisted by Academy committee

domino harvey wrote:By the submitting country, then shortlisted by Academy committee

What kind of committee?

It's a volunteer secret committee, again made up of Academy members--meaning all sorts of industry professionals but probably still mostly actors. And while the fact that they're volunteers may make it seem like they must be really interested in esoteric films, the reality is more likely that they're old, semi-retired, and just have the time (i.e. the same people who show up for elections in off-years). Then separate committees (still secret Academy volunteers, but screenings are apparently in New York and London and not just LA) watch all the shortlist entries and choose the nominees. theHere's a decent summary of last year's process.

Hou is probably a big enough name, Taiwan a well-respected enough industry (although all their nominations have been for Ang Lee!), and The Assassin has enough good press to get it into the shortlist, especially as there aren't many other big name films submitted. But a nomination isn't guaranteed (though I do think it has a fair shot).

Woo Hou!

AFI TOP 10 AMERICAN FILMS OF 2015
"The Big Short"
"Bridge of Spies"
"Carol"
"Inside Out"
"Mad Max: Fury Road"
"The Martian"
"Room"
"Spotlight"
"Star Wars: The Force Awakens"
"Straight Outta Compton"

The Assassin did not submit to any Oscar categories other than Foreign Language Film, so it is ineligible to be nominated for anything else

domino harvey wrote:The Assassin did not submit to any Oscar categories other than Foreign Language Film, so it is ineligible to be nominated for anything else

Wow, absolutely ridiculous. If Weinstein Co had distro'd this film we would be looking at a whole different scenario, not only in terms of awards, but also in terms of North American box office. Very sad for HHH and all the people who put so much into this masterpiece film.

I'm confused. I thought only certain categories like Foreign Language Film and Original Song have submission requirements for the Oscars. Most categories (Picture, Director, Writing, Acting, Editing, Costume, Cinematography, Sound Etc.) base eligibility on the film's release. If it had a commercial run in one theater in New York and one theater in Los Angeles during the calendar year it should be eligible in most categories.

You have to submit your film for general consideration. Just about every film does it as par for the course, even ones with no chance of a nomination. It sounds like The Assassin's distro did not bother to file the paperwork

Trees wrote:Wow, absolutely ridiculous. If Weinstein Co had distro'd this film we would be looking at a whole different scenario, not only in terms of awards, but also in terms of North American box office.

If the Weinstein's had gotten a hold of the Assassin, they probably would have sat on it. We would still be waiting around for the possibility of an overseas dvd/blu becoming available to even see it. It is possibly true that some other company would have treated this film better, but the Weinstein's have the absolute worst track record when it comes to distributing Asian films.