Open Forum Discussion ; GLADIATOR Winning Best Picture!
Submitted by jblack on Mon, 03/26/2001 - 03:12
Tags:
This is an open discussion post for all of us to chat about the best picture going to "Gladiator". I think I'll start to say that it is a crying shame a merely mediocre film could get the top honor a film can recieve. Of the nominees I was rooting for "Traffic". This is the biggest dissapointment since "Rocky"beat "Taxi Driver". What do some of you guys think. And what makes the oscar voters fill the ballad for such a so-so movie. I would love to hear your theories and feelings on the subject.
Sadly enough, the Oscars often boil down to politics. Studio workers love to see their own studio take home the golden boy, so pictures created by more than one studio (Titanic, Gladiator) tend to enter the game with huge support already.
Dreamworks spent a ton of money promoting Gladiator, and the struggling Universal would've sold their head execs to score a best picture win.
At least Scott didn't waltz home with the best director award, and the terrible editing team also left empty-handed.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I couldn't agree more with both comments made about this movie, and especially the politics of the prize. At least the Academy Awards largely rewards things that have some level of merit. There are those, like the Grammys in particular, that seem to totally disregard quality. Popularity often does not equal quality, as something like Hannibal will attest to.
Out of the nominated pictures, and I saw all except Chocolat, Traffic was clearly the best. It had all the makings of something special, from excellent writing and acting, and from beautiful editing and rendering to a very important social and political message. This without compromising the fact that it is also entertaining. I really liked the director's comments during the show. His winning was to me the most satisfying moment.
I agree with you Dave. Traffic was the best out of those nominated. But you know, I have to go back to the nomination process itself. What about those films which were made with a lesser budget that were as good or better than some of these nominated, and still couldnt get a nod for best picture. Almost Famous or Wonder Boys for instance. The highlight dor me was to see Cameron crowe take home best screenplay. That was cool.
Again, I'm a heretic, but I actually favor Erin Brockovich ever so slightly over Traffic for best Soderbergh film of 2000. Yes, Traffic aimed higher, but some of the scenes toward the end were extremely weak (Douglas' final speech stands out), while EB actually pulled off everything it attempted. Frankly, EB should have been a made-for-TV flick, but it was the skill of all involved that elevated it much higher. Traffic could have trimmed or lost a few subplots along the way.
EB fulfilled every bit of its potential. Traffic did not.
As to the rest of your comment, it is harder for an obscure film to nab a nomination that it is for it to take home an Oscar. Once nominated, all the press hype focuses on the contenders, and the free tapes go out to the voters by the boxful. Before, however, you have to generate your own hype, which is very difficult if your a smaller flick. Once nominated, the playing field at least evens out somewhat (though, granted, not enough).
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I highly disagree with you Les. I mean EB should never been nominated. The film was a stage for us to see Julia Roberts breasts, thats about it. The story was too thin for any one to concentrate on and I frankly, concentrated on her chest. And, I might add that any working actress could have played that shallow part. Frankly, a horrible movie.
First, no, sadly enough, not any actress could have carried the film in this role. The lead had to be both likable and, to a degree, rough and offputting. This is not nearly as easy as Julia makes it seem. If it wasn't the greatest performance by an actress this year (and it wasn't), it certainly was a good performance.
So, j, your saying that despite a smart script, fantastic direction, innovative cinematography (which was actually fitted to the story better here than in Traffic), and wonderful performances by many (Albert Finney, the under-rated Aaron Eckhart, Marg Helgenberger), you could only focus on Julia Roberts' false breasts?
My I humbly suggest that this has more to do perhaps with you and not the film? Nobody else I know found those orbs to be the center(s?) of the film...
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I dont know about fantastic script. There obviously wasnt enough content in the story or I would have looked at other parts of her body. Come on Les, Was that script really any good?
It wasn't heavy with plot, that is very true, but I really believe most folks overvalue plot twists and turns nowadays. There was a plot, and it was well-structued and supported by a great screenplay lacking some of the more cheesy lines the Traffic script slipped into towards the end. It wasn't the very best screenplay ever, but it was good. It was more character driven than it was twist driven, and I really respect that in an age when most young people's favorite films hinge on a major revelation toward the end (yes, I'm talking Shawshank Redemption, Sixth Sense, and Usual Suspects, all of which I guessed at least half way through the film (Sixth Sense I actually guessed from the trailer alone)).
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I agree with your assessment of Roberts' acting, as well as the performances of the others. However, I really thought the movie stunk up the place. The story was unoriginal, the heroine unsympathetic, and all other aspects thoroughly mediocre (cinematography, etc). I'm glad she was recognized for a good performance (though you're right in that she shouldn't have won over such other talent) but best picture? Not even close to being worthy of the nomination.
Thanks Buddy. By no means do I dismean lbangs view. He is a well respected dude in my eyes. You hear me Bangs? But really, the film is shallow and far from Best Picture consideration.
Jblack and I dish it straight because we both already know the level of respect and admiration for the other we share.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I agree that the story wasn't very original. However, I am surprised that anybody found the heroine unsympathetic. She wasn't a typcially bland, perfect, milquetoast Hollywood hero, sure; her edges were rough, she was brash, and she made her sure of stupid decision. Part of the film's magic is that she is sympathic despite these flaws, and if you found her otherwise, I can certainly understand why you thought the film stunk.
The cinematography was terrific, by the way.
Was it worthy of nomination? I'll put it this wasy. It was at least as worthy (if not moreso) as Traffic, a film with great potential which lost its way toward the end with one too many cliches and stereotyped character (the drug czar has a daughter on drugs? That's a new one. Douglas gives a goofy, unrealistic speech toward the end of the film? i'm shocked!) Traffic still managed to be a fairly good film, but if it aimed higher that Erin, it certainly stumbled more often as well.
If Gladiator is the type of film Oscar voters vote for because it feels like an Oscar film, Traffic is the type of films critics claim was robbed because it felt like the type of film that are usually robbed. Requiem for a Dream and Almost Famous both were more worthy than Traffic, or Erin, for that matter.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I completely disagree about Traffic. While it did aim much higher than Brockovich, and may not have succeeded quite as well, then I have to contend that EB set extremely low standards for itself. I thought Traffic was ambitious in its attempt to balance so many aspects of the drug war, and in this respect it succeeded admirably. As well, other filmic techniques were used, and used well. The use of colour filters for the different locations, for example.
EB on the other hand, set out to tell a David vs. Goliath tale set in a law-type setting. Been done. The twist here was the character representing David, whose brashness and unprofessionality (while original in this type of film), added nothing to the standard plot a la A Civil Action, Rainmaker, etc. etc. I agree too many critics focus on plot, but I didn't think the character in this film was enough to carry it. In short, I thought that this film was nothing special.
My vote was for Traffic, but to be fair I haven't seen Almost Famous or Requiem For a Dream. As a matter of fact, of the nominees for Best Picture, I only saw the two mentioned here and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
BTW, I respect both of your opinions greatly, and have enjoyed your comments on this subject. I will have to see Gladiator before I comment on its worthiness for the win, but I suspect people were simply dazzled by its being an epic. After all, if it's an epic, it must be good, right? There were so many fantastic films this year, it's a shame to see the nominees populated largely by big-budget spectacle films which may have been good, but not necessarily important, or even that interesting.
Even the innovative use of color filters to designate location points out Traffic's unfortunate reliance on the past. This technique was used by Soderbergh before (and better) in Out of Sight.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. I have difficulty believing that you are comparing EB unfavorably to such truly cliched and boring law dramas such as A Civil Actin and Rainmaker.
And, my friend, you should know that I respect you as well. In fact, I rarely take the time to differ with somebody I don't respect. :)
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
I haven't seen Traffic, so I can't comment on their comparative merits, but I do agree that Erin Brokovich was a very good movie.
The plot was a typical David v. Goliath story, but that is hardly a strike against it (unless we want to ban archetype-based plots altogether, but that would put a pretty serious crimp in most artistic output). The script, characters, and performances elevated it from the pack.
The script and Robert's performance of her part of it resulted in a fully-realized character, which is quite rare. We get windows into so many aspects of her life and personality: single motherhood, the sense of lost potential, true grit that sometimes flows over into abrasiveness, and vulnerability. It's all there.
And of course, Albert Finney was terrific. In fact, I thought the whole movie was well-cast and well-acted. I liked it. Starting with Out of Sight, Soderbergh has been on a quite a roll. I can't wait for Ocean's Eleven.
Thanks, Jim. I knew I couldn't be alone in liking Erin Brockovich!
I can certainly understand somebody liking Traffic more, although I don't. I am a bit baffled by the number of people who seem to label it as an outright awful film.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
This is my feeling on Erin and Traffic. They are both very good movies.
Erin Brockovich was very entertaing, and Julia was VERY good in it. It was a cliched story, but the movie actually made it feel fresh. It had some interesting aspects to it, such as the yellow motif (the sand in many scenes, the always yellow lights, the sun seeming more yellow than normal) and the actual characters in it (as opposed to charicatures). I thuroughly enjoyed it, but I felt it had a little bit of a lack of substance.
Traffic was slightly more compelling to me than Erin was. On reflection, it wrapped up to neatly, and there were far too many speeches in it for my taste.
The script for Traffic was very interesting, up until the last fifteen minutes. I felt that Benicio Del Torro's character was brilliant (which was probably more of Benicio than the script.), and that Don Cheadle also shone in his role.
My main problems with the film were all in Catharine Zeta Jones' plot. First, I thought she turned in a mediocre performance. I also hated her character, and disliked the time the movie spent concentrating on her. I thought that Michael Douglass' character's plot was a teensy bit cheesy (slight sarcasm in the 'teensy'), but I loved the time spent on his daughter's addiction.
Overall, I liked Traffic slightly more than Erin Brockovich, but both were good films.
Now, on the topic of who shaould have won, I think it is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon hands down. Traffic became tangled in its own plots, and the stories were unbalanced; Erin Brockovich had little substance; Gladiator was a popcorn movie, nothing more; and I was not able to view Chocolat. But Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon hit me like a two-ton train. I came out of there amazed. First, the sheer visualbeauty of the film was astounding, with the best cinematography in a long while. Second, the performances in the film were absolutely wonderful (Michelle Yeoh's subtle and noble love for Li Mu Bai, and Zhang Ziyi's firey hatred of everything that could possibly restrict her stood out, but there were no bad performances in the movie). Third, the story was so graceful and engrossing, that I felt like I could have stayed in my seat for three more hours and never be bored.
So, there ya go. That's my two cents.
Weoll guys, what I think really should have won was Almost Famous, but it was not nominated. I originally put Wonder Boys down for my favorite film of 2000, but I think I'll switch it with AF. films like that rarely get made. The performances were so strong and the script was so fresh and...well..delightful, that I can hardly believe that it was past up for a nomination. Gladiator, which does not even hold a light to AF, wins, and this is what really pisses me off. I'm at a loss!