criterionforum.org

Bill Murray picked a terrible year to try to snag his Oscar - he'll be third in the running at best.

Day Lewis in that VF picture is so bloody ... hot !

mfunk9786 wrote:Bill Murray picked a terrible year to try to snag his Oscar - he'll be third in the running at best.

Naturally he doesn't stand a chance. I just anticipate lots of media coverage of DDL and Murray's respective performances.

Anyhow, if DDL wins, would that make him the only actor to win three times? I know Nicholson has three, but one is for supporting.

You're right - he'd be the first of this class to emerge with a third Best Actor award:

Spencer Tracy
Fredric March
Gary Cooper
Marlon Brando
Dustin Hoffman
Tom Hanks
Jack Nicholson
Daniel Day-Lewis
Sean Penn

He'll have a tremendous percentage going too, as it'll be his 5th nomination and 3rd win. By comparison, for example, Spencer Tracy had 9 nominations that yielded his wins.

Of course in Tracey's case he pissed off the academy so bad they'd never give him an other one after the Edison fiasco.

knives wrote:Of course in Tracey's case he pissed off the academy so bad they'd never give him an other one after the Edison fiasco.

What fiasco do you speak of?

Basically Tracy thought it was a moral imperative for Edison, The Man to be rewarded in some way and when it wasn't even nominated for BP he did a George C. Scott which prevented him from winning anything after.

I like how someone asking for clarification on Oscar shorthand was given another riddle to solve

Are you suggesting not everyone here is an oscarologist?

I'm as surprised as you are

Yea actually I'm in the dark about the Scott story as well but I'm assuming it was something unforgivable (?)....

Instead of attending the Oscars, Scott stayed home and watched a hockey game. That's always forgiveable in my book.

willoneill wrote:Instead of attending the Oscars, Scott stayed home and watched a hockey game. That's always forgiveable in my book.

Well, It's a tad more than that. He refused his first Oscar nomination in 1962 for The Hustler. When he was nominated for Best Actor for Patton, he refused again, calling the Oscars "a goddamned meat parade". He didn't accept the Oscar nor was he at the presentation. He directed that the Oscar should be donated to the Patton Museum, but those instructions were never put in writing to the Academy. The Oscar is currently on display at VMI. ( Scott was a native Virginian.)

Even though I'm an Oscar nerd, I totally appreciate him exercising his right to give that institution the middle finger.

Of course, that didn't stop the Academy from nominating him again the following year for The Hospital.

The Academy also has a stalker ex-girlfriend obsession with Woody Allen.

triodelover wrote:

willoneill wrote:Instead of attending the Oscars, Scott stayed home and watched a hockey game. That's always forgiveable in my book.

Well, It's a tad more than that.

Oh yeah, I'm sure the hockey game remark was a joke on Scott's part ... though he was married to a Canadian at the time.

First footage appears in a trailer for the trailer.

Markson wrote:First footage appears in a trailer for the trailer.

Only a few years ago I would not have believed that the words "Lincoln", "Spielberg" and "Live Google Hangout" could coexist in the same trailer.

God I hope the trailer suggests the film has more to it than this, another bullshit Great Man history that reduces a marvelously complex, mysterious, misunderstood, flawed, intelligent, cunning, creative individual in American history to a living waxwork or Christ figure spouting plattitudes and reciting one damn speech of his everyone seems to remember.

This is Spielberg we are talking about. If you expected anything other than a hagiography you were looking the wrong way.

Yeah, I know, you're right. It's still a damn shame, because when he does something, it can't be done again, because invariably some producer will say, "Why bother, Spielberg did it?"

Lincoln would be such a marvelous person to make a movie about, if only the filmmaker would bother to really learn about him, and try to discover the man's humanity. That's what made him so great.

John Ford came closest, with Young Mr. Lincoln.

I would hope that the combination of Doris Kearns-Goodwin and Tony Kushner might be a bulwark against Spielbergian oversimplification. Let's also remember that we are watching that new manner of beast, the trailer for a trailer, and that it's designed to make a tiny impact on a big number of people.

I'm more worried by all that teal lighting and fog I see. Tony Scott est mort! Vive Tony Scott!

Brianruns10 wrote:Yeah, I know, you're right. It's still a damn shame, because when he does something, it can't be done again, because invariably some producer will say, "Why bother, Spielberg did it?"

Lincoln would be such a marvelous person to make a movie about, if only the filmmaker would bother to really learn about him, and try to discover the man's humanity. That's what made him so great.

John Ford came closest, with Young Mr. Lincoln.

Spielberg's no slouch. He's always made movies for everyone (kids included). Maybe he's hit and miss these days, but this film need not be some dark, moody, brooding affair for it to be great.