Why not? Did you not think he was good in it?

Yeah, mine was a goof. I liked it very much, although a weekend watch of Phantom Thread dropped it down a little more. PTA + DDL = OMG.

It's funny, I had trouble envisioning people's hangups with the film, and now I feel on the opposite end with Three Billboards, which I found to be a hot mess.

He was fine in it. It was just weird that his character’s backstory involved

What makes it worse is that they show a clip from TCM in one of the montages.

Also the Corrie backlash against the BP winner is more predictable than the Oscars.

I, for one, am super stoked that Toro won stuff

My problems with the movie are mostly to do with the central character and how she's a despicable person who walks all over everyone else in her life, but the movie instead wants us to find her winsome and charming. Spoilers:

If you're not charmed by Sally Hawkins, it's an incredibly frustrating movie. I'm also really tired of the one-half-of-a-color-wheel visual palette that del Toro keeps leaning on, and Desplat's score is obnoxiously twee. For me, Amelie Fucks a Fish was easily the worst of the best picture nominees.

In my defense, I hated the movie as soon as I saw it and have railed against it well before the ceremony, as this very thread can attest. It's this year's Toni Erdmann, the widely acclaimed movie that makes me feel like I'm taking crazy pills for struggling to find the least shred of value in it.

I'm not a huge fan of The Shape of Water either. Dunkirk, Get Out or Phantom Thread were more worthy.

As it was with

The Oscars have yet again provided their only purpose, a free lunch at the expense of coworkers who vote with their heart.

The Academy needs fewer Tom Hanks types and more Udo Kiers. I'd like to think there's an alternate universe where Nekromantik won best picture.

"Panic briefly erupted at the 91st Academy Awards ceremony last night as host Crispin Glover announced he had released a family of rabid opossums into the crowd."

"Reportedly, Udo just shook his head, smiled and remained seated."

Dialogue tracks in all acting clips have been replaced with Werner Herzog narration.

If a winner's speech runs long, they are dragged from the stage by a giant tentacle operated by Jim Henson's Creature Shop.

I'm fine with The Shape of Water winning. Even though Three Billboards is my favorite of the nominees, no sci-fi film has ever won Best Picture before, so it was great to see one finally win. I agree with BL that some of Elisa's actions were questionable (especially the bathroom flooding scene), but the only ones which stood out to me took up a slight portion of the film's running time. Not enough to ruin the film altogether for me.

Maybe now he can finally get funding for At the Mountains of Madness.

I think you meant to say James Court.

Exactly. It's, like, dude just got the golden ticket to do whatever. This is the best best picture winner ever by far

Right. He 100% won't waste years after this ripe period of opportunity pitching mind-blowing concepts to the public only to end up making a boring, compromised product in the end. Totally not his style.

I was weird about a lot of the Best Picture nominees I saw this year; I was disappointed that I wasn't a bigger fan of the most universally-praised ones I saw (like the fairly low-key Thread, the somewhat inconsistent Get Out, or Lady Bird, which I enjoyed, but felt it relied too much on overly broad comedy and stereotypically quirky "indie movie" characters, at the expense of the more dramatic elements, and I didn't even bother writing a review of it, ultimately). On the other hand, I preferred relatively more divisive releases like Dunkirk, The Shape Of Water, or the granddaddy of all the 2017 audience-splitters, Three Billboards. I just had to be a movie rebel this year, I suppose...Yeah, but that's an issue with the way Martin McDonagh characterized Dixon through his screenwriting, not with the way Rockwell portrayed him through his performance; that's like saying that Alessandro Bertolazzi, Giorgio Gregorini, and Christopher Nelson didn't deserve to win their Best Makeup Oscar just because the film they worked on happened to be Suicide Squad (and they did deserve that, regardless of whether you liked that movie (which I didn't; but, still)).

Does it hurt to think in this manner?

Oh, Nameless is on his old bullshit again

Surely these mind-blowing concepts could have been held back by, you know, people who want to make money. You work with what you got, and what dude gots at this point is a BP and BD Oscar

My brain works more painlessly than yours and I'm in the psyche ward!

Presumably the people who financed Twin Peaks: The Return wanted to make money. Presumably, the people who financed Phantom Thread wanted to make money. Presumably, the people who financed The Florida Project wanted to make money. Presumably, the people who financed Nocturama wanted to make money. I could go on and on in this fashion, but my point is that there are so many other ambitious projects that get greenlighted in a given year while del Toro just keeps cranking out mediocrities while promising magic that he can't deliver. His stated ambition isn't particularly special when he keeps failing to deliver in the end product.

Episode 8 of Twin Peaks: The Return on its own is both more ambitious and more accomplished than anything del Toro has ever attempted, and I guarantee it was made at a fraction of the cost of The Shape of Water. That's a bogus excuse.

And while we're at it, Michael Cimino also got BP and BD Oscars. Look where that got him.

I don't think you even need to discuss GDT individually to say that winning BP will probably do fuck-all for something like At the Mountains of Madness.

Look at it this way. Paul Haggis, Ben Affleck, and Michel Hazanavicius haven't really done anything, film-wise, that they couldn't've found financing and support for prior to winning their awards (and all saw a real downturn in critical acclaim thereafter). Tom Hooper's played it safe and stuck to awards-friendly films since. Innaritu's currently shifting to television, as is Tom McCarthy. Hell, it's taken Steve McQueen six years to follow up on 12 Years, and he's making a modest heist movie. Oscar wins don't translate into much of anything, in most cases. People more or less continue along the trajectory they were on, assuming they don't crash and burn. If GDT can leverage his win into AtMoM, I'll love it, but I'll be stunned.

Sidebar: if PTA wanted to try a cosmic horror tale at any point, the guy would fucking crush it. After watching the subtle creepiness of Phantom Thread, and reflecting on the voiceless vistas of There Will Be Blood, he could bring some truly weird flavor to one of those stories.

I generally agree with what you're saying here, and I used Michael Cimino as shorthand for that effect. There's little precedent to suggest that a best picture/best director win will dramatically reshape the course of a director's career. Oliver Stone's win for Platoon was a big boost for him, and Jonathan Demme's win for The Silence of the Lambs I think set him off-course into middling prestige-picture territory for a while, but I can't really isolate any distinct difference in prestige or accomplishment from directors based on their Oscar wins post-1986.

But that's a separate question from how filmmakers market themselves and their supposed future projects. And may I be struck dead if del Toro hasn't routinely promised more than he's ever delivered as a filmmaker.

I don't like this trend of overpoliticizing the significance of the Oscars. This week, we've learned that the metoo movement has been delivered a terrible blow because Lady Bird failed to win anything, and that wife-beating Gary Oldman is still a great actor despite his past problems with anger issues and alcohol.

Outside of the incomprehensible inability for allegedly educated people to hold more than a single thought in their heads at the same time - that talent and morality are not mutually reinforced qualities - it also threatens to undermine the quality of the medium. For example, I read an article shortly before the ceremony (I forget, one of those terribly woke sites) that was breaking down the short doc category in such a way that seemed to suggest that the writer hadn't bothered to actually watch the films. What it boiled down to was something like "will women on opiates resonate more with voters than criminal justice reform?" I dunno, maybe it depends on the damn execution. Watch the films and then decide which one handled its subject matter better, rather than just weighing which issue you think is the most important. Like this is some kind of intersectional competition for the most worthy cause. Like Hollywood (where the art of film is also woefully misunderstood) has been saying, great films are "execution dependent". It appears that Hollywood is not the only place in the world where execution is treated with the suspicion of particularly unaesthetic eyes.

Del Toro directed The Devil's Backbone. Enough said. I've never considered him a mediocre director and I'm glad for his BP and BD wins. Although I was personally rooting for Three Billboards out of the nominees. If there was an Oscar God though I'd love to have seen The Disaster Artist nominated and win.

Was there ever evidence that Oldman actually beat his wife? I read like 10 articles on this the other day, going back to the time of the accusation, and I could never find any evidence that this actually happened. He was accused by a person who a judge did not see fit to have even partial custody of her own children and who had everything to gain by making this claim, he denied it, and as far as I could find, no one ever showed that it occurred.
I'm not saying it for-sure didn't, I just wonder if we have any evidence before we actually label him a "wife-beater".

I didn't want to get into the entire mire of why his specific accusations have been refuted and, at least legally, debunked, but, yes, it's a clear example of weaponizing allegations in an underhanded way of masquerading as fact.

But even taken, for sake of argument, at face value that, given Oldman's more substantiated instances of public anger and intoxication which were well known throughout the 90s, it may be possible to infer the possibility of domestic violence in 2001, then it still remains a leap to characterize him as a "predator" (as I saw him characterized in a recent Vox piece), as if the incident was of a willful misogyny as opposed to a symptom of these other personal problems. For the sake of argument, if we assume the allegation correct, then it still seems more than a coincidence that no such allegation has arisen since the time that he's gotten sober and therapy.

This brings up a more troubling aspect of the #metoo movement, especially the tendency to troll through decades of past behavior in absence of more recent examples, which shows a mercilessness towards its targets. At what point should we be expected to forgive or redeem past behavior? At all? Again, this starts to become something closer to head-hunting, championing the trophies as objects rather than attempting to empathize with the human subjects. The irresponsibility of ignoring relevant exculpatory facts in order to maintain this enemies list is a sign that some may be using the cause for less honorable intentions.

All that being said, it's all still beside the point, as unsavory as some see it, of talented accomplishment. If Gary Oldman had the finest performance of the year, then he deserves the Oscar. That's the extent of the criteria. Likewise, despite Casey Affleck's trespasses of years past (also under alcoholic influence, if I remember), he still deserved his Oscar for his work in Manchester By The Sea. It's not a very polite thing to bring up for most people, but those who are familiar with his biography are aware that there is a more than likely possibility that Marlon Brando had an incestuous relationship with his daughter. Cheyenne had alleged "sexual abuse", but stopped short at actual intercourse, but this appears to have been a major factor in her suicide regardless. Marlon Brando was likely a moral monster, and, as unpalatable as it may seem to polite company, Marlon Brando is still one of the great actors of the 20th Century. Both things can be true, and it's bizarre that some people still need to get them twisted. Talented people, especially those "blessed" with the indulgences of fame, are frequently terrible people. This isn't relevant to their talented accomplishments.

I have to admit that I think the recent decision by Cannes to disqualify Netflix's film offerings is one of the dumbest things I've read from the festival. I've never really understood the aversion in the past - good movies are good movies - but I think this year's rationale decidedly falls into disingenuous dogshit. They've implemented a rule that determines that only films which have French theatrical distribution can be shown in competition. It doesn't require much knowledge or imagination to think of several past Cannes contenders that did not have any distribution at the time of its showing, and in fact Cannes provided one of the more prestigious platforms in which films can acquire distribution. One example has to be Andrei Rublev, a film which, arguably, was salvaged from the Russian censors by a successful showing in 1969 (and gaining French distribution afterwards, while still winning the FIPRESCI prize).

There's a lot of old romanticism about the cinema, and I sympathize. I prefer the cinema experience to home viewing, at least as an ideal. The problem, which Cannes is unable to decipher, is that the cinema experience has changed pretty drastically in recent years. Part of this is due to technological changes, but, in America, it's the economic changes that are more pertinent. As in there's very little film studio interest in financing smaller and medium budget projects. Netflix has managed to turn its revenue model into a lucrative and (most importantly for the Cannes elite) creatively liberal film investment venture. In America, it isn't so much that audiences have stopped attending these kinds of films because they don't want to see them, it's because both the deteriorating theater experience and the more attractive pricing structure of Netflix. What Cannes should be applauding is the fact that these films are now more accessible to more audiences who do not have to squeeze into the very limited-run schedules at their local art house (assuming they have one).

But Cannes does not care about the people or the poor. No, they insist. It feeds every elitist stereotype ever hurled at their gala.

Some of the films which will not be shown at Cannes this year: Alfonso Cuarón’s “Roma,” Jeremy Saulnier’s “Hold the Dark,” Paul Greengrass’ “Norway,” Orson Welles’ long-lost “The Other Side of the Wind,” and Morgan Neville’s Welles documentary “They’ll Love Me When I’m Dead.” Add to this list upcoming projects from Scorsese and the Coen Brothers, and nobody thought to ask why these filmmakers have decided that Netflix provides them with more attractive means than the traditional studios?

Yeah I don’t get the stigma against Netflix or any streaming service-funded films either.

What a dumb rule to only accept movies with French theatrical distribution. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a film festival? I’ve worked on friends’ shorts that made it to Cannes. They wouldn’t have the exposure they did without the festival circuit.

Exactly. Plus such a protectionist rule to solely benefit the French theatrical market undermines the whole "international" thing as well. Can anyone imagine what the reaction would be if TIFF only accepted films which had already secured Canadian distribution? Plus, my understanding is that France requires a three year gap between theatrical release and streaming service.

Cannes needs to understand that greater accessibility to these films is more important than popcorn sales, and the ethos of creative expression should lead them to champion the freedom that Netflix has afforded their filmmakers. Does anyone really think that the latest film from Cuaron is less worthy than Solo? Maybe we need another student shutdown to make the point.

I guess this place is as good as any. Let it ride:

Cannes 2018

Palme d’Or: “Shoplifters,” Hirokazu Kore-eda

Grand Prix: “BlacKkKlansman,” Spike Lee

Jury Prize: “Capernaum,” Nadine Labaki

Special Palme d’Or: “The Image Book,” Jean-Luc Godard

Best Actress: Samal Yeslyamova, “Akya”

Best Actor: Marcello Fonte, “Dogman”

Best Director: Pawel Pawlikowski, “Cold War”

Best Screenplay (tie): Alice Rohrwacher, “Happy as Lazzaro” & Nader Saeivar, “Three Faces”

Camera d’Or: “Girl,” Lukas Dhont

Short Film Palme d’Or: “All These Creatures,” Charles Williams

Queer Palm (Feature): “Girl,” Lukas Dhont

Queer Palm (Short): “The Orphan,” Carolina Markowicz


It'll be a minute before I get a chance to see any of these, but 'grats to Godard, Lee and Kore-eda.

Although not yet announced, it's looking like Venice is going to top Cannes for their selection this year. Much of that is due to no one's fault outside of the procrastinating filmmakers themselves unable to bring a cut in on time, and indeed, most of the questions surrounding the final line-up at Venice is predisposed on whether or not they get the films before the deadline. Also, as far as I know, Venice doesn't have any issues accepting films that are produced by streaming companies. I'm not sure if this was behind the reason that Cannes rejected Mike Leigh's new film (produced by Amazon, and almost certainly will be available streaming before France's three year moratorium expires) or not, but if so, then it promises to be a headliner at Venice regardless.

Also, new films from Barry Jenkins (adapting James Baldwin!), Claire Denis (going sci-fi!), Harmony Korine, Yorgos Lanthimos, Oliver Assayas, Xavier Dolan, Naomi Kawase and possibly Luca Guadagnino's Suspiria.

The long shot is whether Terrence Malick will submit a surprise in Radegun, his new WWII drama.

The Emmy nominations are out.
Pros: The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel got more nominations than I expected. Also, Cameron Britton got a guest nom for his work in Mindhunter. David Lynch got a directing nod as well.
Cons: Nothing else for Twin Peaks. Not even a best actor nomination for MacLachlan. It also would have been nice if Marc Maron got a nom for his work in GLOW.

But check out those technical categories:

Outstanding Writing for a Limited Series, Movie or Dramatic Special
Outstanding Production Design for a Narrative Contemporary Program (One Hour or More)
Outstanding Single-Camera Picture Editing for a Limited Series or Movie
Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Limited Series or Movie
Outstanding Sound Editing for a Limited Series, Movie or Special
Outstanding Cinematography for a Limited Series or Movie
Outstanding Hairstyling for a Limited Series or Movie
Outstanding Makeup for a Limited Series or Movie (Non-Prosthetic)

It can still clean up at the not-for-broadcast awards!

That's good to hear, especially for the writing one. It has to be pretty insulting to TV writers that it's not a broadcast category.

I think that one might actually be part of the regular telecast and not the creative arts awards.

Good, it should be. Writing noms aren't always on lists posted on sites like Yahoo, IMDB, etc. that I linked to.

I have a hard time seeing how 18 episodes is "limited". Many of the main category nominees have half of that.

Other thoughts:

Curb seems like a legacy nom. The show this year was a disappointment, which has been the consistent consensus.

Is Black Mirror disqualified somehow?

Is SNL a "comedy series" now, somehow? And what was Leslie Jones' outstanding work this past season?

Jordan Klepper deserves a little love.

Somebody watched Jesus Christ Superstar?

Limited means the story is contained to this season and isn't continuing. If they do end up continuing, I think the next season is disqualified from the category (this happened with Downton Abbey). It's a bit odd since The Return is continuing a story started in another season of television, though I suppose they make an exception if that earlier production wrapped.

But, fuck, why didn't it even get a Limited Series nom? Oh! Not as good as The Assassination of Giovanni Versaci? Only in Trump's America is Ryan Murphy more celebrated than David Lynch, is all I'm saying.

Yep, and that's also the category Black Mirror would have gotten its nom in, since as an anthology series it's not telling a continuing story across seasons.

And, btw, not to demean Plemons' excellent work in "USS Callister", but "Crocodile" or "Metalhead" should have been the episodes that got the most emmy attention.

No idea. Nothing I saw. Anyway, Cecily Strong deserves the nom if anyone does. McKinnon to me is getting a little... exhausting? Like, it's not her fault they're overplaying her on the show and forcing her into every role, but Jesus, leave some room, I don't want the show to be Kate & Friends. Similarly perplexed by Kenan Thompson. I know some people like his specific brand of reliable repertory player, but I find his characters mostly flat, and he has this weird thing where he seems to be perpetually on the verge of breaking character. (He also has a tendency to mouth other actors' lines while they're talking.)

Oh fuck, I didn't even see that they nominated Baldwin and his insufferable Trump impression. Ugh.

I have opinions on SNL. Too many.



It pulled in quite a bit of viewers. And I liked some of its production design and some of the performances - but not really John Legend, who came off stiff.

And, to be clear, Jesus is not the lead role of Jesus Christ Superstar; that distinction belongs to the actor playing Judas. It's kinda the whole fucking point of the show.

For sure, although I do give disproportionate attention to how well the Jesus actor nails "Gethsemane."

I feel you, as a perennially frustrated viewer.

Again, like Curb, I was under the impression that it was the consensus that SNL had a disappointing season, with usually the departure of head writers Chris Kelly and Sarah Schneider given as the excuse. But instead, the show receives a record number of Emmy noms? Seems frankly political, of the embarrassing sort that liberal Hollywood normally tries to avoid.

More disappointing for me has been the pushing of Beck Bennett and Kyle Mooney into meager walk-on roles and dialing back their more original contributions which have been welcome infusions to the show's more stagnant comedic formulas. Instead, the show seems more focused on the newer featured players Mickey Day and Alex Moffat, who bring far less innovation (or amusement) to the table. As anonymous white guys, they are adequate enough for the Trump sons, only superficially. Moffat's Joe Scarborough is insultingly thin, not helped by the contrast with McKinnon's excellent Mika. Scarborough should be one of the easiest of the current TV news personalities to parody and has no shortage of ticks and mannerisms to exploit, and Moffat can't even nail the Southern drawl.

I have no hate for Kenan (or Jones for that matter), but if he isn't winning an award for "What Up With That?", what's the point? His Lavar Ball impression is cute, but a walk in the park for his pedigree.

I'm not sure how much of the past year to blame on the new head writers, Jost and Che, except to point out the increasing lameness of Weekend Update as a clue. The segment, which has always fluctuated on the personalities of the anchors, seems to have given up entirely on any pretense to media satire, instead just more or less shamelessly becoming a vehicle for each one's hot takes, and that's also where we are with virtually every single other comedic "news" show out there. Instead of satirizing the media's image and message massaging and mechanics of propoganda (RIP Colbert), these shows basically default to advocacy. Which is fine for what it is, but in the dearth of actual media satire, it becomes a bit repetitive even when (maybe especially when) you happen to agree with them. But that's also why I mention Klepper, who is far from classic Colbert's range but who seems to have the only current show devoted to actual media satire, of the alt-right/MRM variety. He deserves something for resisting the trend towards soapboxing.