Re: Oscar Picks
Trey, I agree with your Tweet about the missing folk in the In Memoriam segment of the Oscars. I was a wee bit sad not to see Jerry Nelson in there especially.
Last edited by Jimmy B (2013-02-25 07:21:33)
You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Trey, I agree with your Tweet about the missing folk in the In Memoriam segment of the Oscars. I was a wee bit sad not to see Jerry Nelson in there especially.
Last edited by Jimmy B (2013-02-25 07:21:33)
Looking at the full list and came across this oddity:
BEST SOUND EDITING (Joint winners)
Skyfall - Per Hallberg and Karen Baker Landers
Zero Dark Thirty - Paul NJ Ottosson
Has this happened before?
Rare, but it happens sometimes. The highest-profile example is Barbara Streisand and Katherine Hepburn tying for Best Actress in 1969.
The night was very Life of Pi heavy... I haven't seen it, is it really that good?
Yes, it's a gorgeous looking film - and deserves the awards it's won for directing, cinematography and VFX. It's a 'big screen' film too, so if you get a chance to see it as its best, go for it.
I think that Life of Pi deserved every Oscar it got, and no others.
Dave: What were the other canditates, then? Wreck-it-Ralph, Paranorman?
My thing was that I was very much into the story, and in the last 20 minutes it told me thy the story I cared about is not what I should have cared about.
My thing was that I was very much into the story, and in the last 20 minutes it told me thy the story I cared about is not what I should have cared about.
It it's the same thing that happened in the book, then yeah...fuck that shit. I hate that flippin "twist" thing at the end of the book.
Well, oddly enough it was the ending that sold me on the movie. The whole thing was beautiful to look at and held my attention - it's not like I hated it or was bored at all. Then the ending surprised me, but in a good way.
I have one quibble about the way the ending played out specifically, but otherwise I thought it was very fitting. Also a good example of the "surprising but inevitable" ending, because I immediately thought "Oh of course. I should have seen that coming."
But as I said, Life of Pi isn't my kind of movie - magical realism is so not my thing. So for me the ending was what redeemed it, and made it about more than just (extremely) pretty pictures.
So how did DiF do in picking the Razzie winners? Boy, was Prometheus snubbed or what?
Eddie wrote:My thing was that I was very much into the story, and in the last 20 minutes it told me thy the story I cared about is not what I should have cared about.
It it's the same thing that happened in the book, then yeah...fuck that shit. I hate that flippin "twist" thing at the end of the book.
I really like the film's ending. The story is about finding meaning and comfort through things like family and religion. The ending of the movie serves that theme by saying that the stories we choose to tell are sometimes more important than the truth. It's not telling you not to care about the story you spent two hours with: it's telling you that you can and should care, despite what you now know.
and religion.
Yeah, that's where it loses me. But that's just me I guess.
Allison wrote:and religion.
Yeah, that's where it loses me. But that's just me I guess.
It's a glass half full, half empty scenario. Yes, it's sympathetic to religion, but it also acknowledges that religion is 'a story' and therefore made-up, which is actually braver than most Hollywood movies that pander to the supernatural.
Obviously to say 'religion is a better story' invites all sorts of responses: (1) which religion? any religion I pull out of my ass? (2) doesn't truth count for anything? (3) what about all the negative aspects of religion? bigotry? inquisitions? persecutions? anti-science? continually striving to pull us back into the dark ages?
It's also very misanthropic to suggest humans are infantile and just want nice stories over the truth, and that rational truth seekers (e.g. scientists) are leading impoverished lives. A scientist can enjoy Lord of the Rings like others, but doesn't seek to blur the lines between fantasy and reality.
It's also very misanthropic to suggest humans are infantile and just want nice stories over the truth, and that rational truth seekers (e.g. scientists) are leading impoverished lives.
Are you saying the film argues that?
Obviously to say 'religion is a better story' invites all sorts of responses: (1) which religion? any religion I pull out of my ass? (2) doesn't truth count for anything? (3) what about all the negative aspects of religion? bigotry? inquisitions? persecutions? anti-science? continually striving to pull us back into the dark ages?
Well, (1) the film clearly doesn't subscribe to any one belief system, as it makes the point that the actual beliefs aren't what matters, what matters is what you get out of it. Pi is a member of three very different religions, and he gleans different truths from all of them. Pi doesn't promise to make the journalist believe in Jesus, or Vishnu, or Lord Xenu, he says it will make him believe in god. Just god. That leads into (2), which depends on what you consider "truth." The movie doesn't give you a straight answer. You can choose to believe whatever you want. I didn't have a problem with this ambiguity. It's the whole point of the movie. And (3), that's one hell of a generalization you've got there. I feel like I'm on /r/atheism on Reddit, and that's not a good feeling.
It's also very misanthropic to suggest humans are infantile and just want nice stories over the truth, and that rational truth seekers (e.g. scientists) are leading impoverished lives.
I don't think the movie makes this point at all. The movie suggests that you can seek truth through many different channels, and that it's closed-minded to suggest that one way is inherently "better" than any other way. Is it ridiculous to practice three different religions? Sure, you could argue that. But Pi gets meaning from it. He gets his morality from it, and guess what? It worked out for him. You don't have to agree with his methods, but you can't deny that they had a positive outcome.
avatar wrote:It's also very misanthropic to suggest humans are infantile and just want nice stories over the truth, and that rational truth seekers (e.g. scientists) are leading impoverished lives.
Are you saying the film argues that?
The Japanese investigators were asking 'what actually happened?' It was suggested that the recount of actual events was unsatisfactory, so why don't they accept the fantastical story instead? And they did. Imagine your grandmother died? Would you want the truth or the 'she's just gone away for a long time' explanation?
The movie suggests that you can seek truth through many different channels, and that it's closed-minded to suggest that one way is inherently "better" than any other way.
Different channels? What are the other ways that truth can be sought? Besides empirical science, there's....? Revelation? Authority? Tradition? Intuition? How have these last four contributed to our understanding of the universe?
The movie wasn't endorsing 'different channels at seeking truth'. It clearly stated the animal / floating island account was a story. A superior story, indeed, but still a story. Therefore, it's an aesthetic claim, not an epistemological claim.
There's a difference between empirical truth and personal, internal truth. The movie is about the latter, not the former.
(Mod Edit: Gettin' kinda spoilery all up in here - so, spoilerized )
This seems to me the key conversation...
It's back to Prometheus... as in "it's what I choose to believe"
(Mod Edit: Gettin' kinda spoilery all up in here - so, spoilerized )
Too late, damage done.
Last edited by Lamer (2013-02-27 20:45:30)
(Mod Edit: Gettin' kinda spoilery all up in here - so, spoilerized )
This seems to me the key conversation...
SPOILERAdult Pi Patel: Can I ask you something? I've told you two stories about what happened out on the ocean. Neither explains what caused the sinking of the ship, and no one can prove which story is true and which is not. In both stories, the ship sinks, my family dies, and I suffer.
Writer: True.
Adult Pi Patel: So which story do you prefer?
Writer: The one with the tiger. That's the better story.
Adult Pi Patel: Thank you. And so it goes with God.It's back to Prometheus... as in "it's what I choose to believe"
In fact, I think that Life of Pi can be interpreted as an anti-religious movie. Isn't the movie ultimately saying that religion is just a made-up story we tell ourselves to make the world seem less scary?
Sorry 'bout the spoilers. I assumed the participants above had seen the film (it was released over three months ago, and is based on a bestselling book). What's the rule on spoilers? End of theatrical run? One year? The main attraction of the movie is the wonderful cinematography, effects, acting, and directing. The story doesn't hinge on a critical twist, like a murder mystery does. But apologies all the same.
On the 'makes the world less scary' remark: there is nothing wrong with finding comfort in a lie. I don't think the movie condemns or promotes religion. It merely shows it as one avenue to satisfaction.
On the 'makes the world less scary' remark: there is nothing wrong with finding comfort in a lie. I don't think the movie condemns or promotes religion. It merely shows it as one avenue to satisfaction.
Right, that's more what I'm trying to say. I was just presenting an alternate interpretation.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.