Cinecast #80: Tarkovsky/Oscar Blunders
Overlooked Auteurs/Oscar Blunders: For part two of the Overlooked Auteurs Marathon, Cinecast attempts to contribute something meaningful to the conversation about Russian master Andrei Tarkovsky. How did Adam and Sam fare? Well, the most insightful thing you'll probably hear is a quote from Ingmar Bergman. That being said, if their reverent discussion prompts even a few listeners to check out Tarkovsky's "Andrei Rublev" (1966) and "Solaris (1972), then their efforts will be rewarded.
Also on the show, Listener Feedback and our countdown of the Top 5 Oscar Blunders.
Music by Puerto Muerto and My Morning Jacket courtesy of Bloodshot Records ... Cinecast theme music by Age of the Rifle.
Cinecast is brought to you by Peerflix. Trade DVDs online at peerflix.com/cinecast.
Cinecast #80
:19-23:16 - Overlooked Auteurs: "Andrei Rublev," "Solaris"
23:17-23:53 - Audio Feedback
Music: Puerto Muerto, "Josephine"
24:56-39:51 - Listener Feedback (Top 5 Road Movies)
Music: My Morning Jacket, "Behind That Locked Door"
41:05-51:11 - Top 5 Oscar Blunders
Have a comment or Top 5 list you'd like to share? Send an e-mail or short mp3 clip to cinecast@cinecastshow.com. Or give us a call at 206-203-CINE and leave a voice message.
12 Comments:
Another Oscar blunder, some would say, is that John Wayne never won any Oscars except for True Grit, despite the beliefs of many (including myself) that he was much better in The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. What do you guys think about this?
One of the good way to approach Tarkovsky is to think of his films as poetry instead of the "normal cinematic" language of prose.
The rules of plot and character don't necessarily apply, but the scenes somehow fit. Think of the opening scene of "Andrei Rublev" with the balloonist who, Icarus-like, touches the sun and gets burned. It doesn't contribute to the plot, but it does contribute to the general feeling of the film. Why should we bother to strive for a moment of greatness when we will fail spectacularly? The movie strives for answers by providing an increasingly perplexing series of questions.
-RT
Given how many times he was mentioned, I'm surprised you guys didn't do what I did and just name Scorsese your #1 Oscar blunder.
The Best Picture nominees for 1968
Oliver!
Rachel, Rachel
Romeo & Juliet
The Lion in Winter
Funny Girl
No 2001, The Producers or Rosemary's Baby got nominated for Best Picture
Oliver! won. What a joke.
Freshman year in college. They're showing Solaris up on campus so me and the girlfriend decide to check it out. We walked out about half way through. We were both bored out of our minds. Next semester the girlfriend finds out she has to watch Solaris for a class, so she rents it and makes me watch it over again. I fell asleep. Very boring.
Now, I know it's considered by many a masterpiece. My personal film tastes have changed A LOT since then. The question then becomes, should I check it out again. I saw the Clooney version and thought it was OK, should I revisit the Tarkovsky orignal?
Talk amongst yourselves.
Scorsese has lost 3 times to actor turned directors.
1980, Raging Bull lost to Ordinary People, and he lost to Robert Redford.
1990, Goodfellas lost to Dances with Wolves, and he lost to Kevin Costner.
2004, The Aviator lost to Million Dollar Baby, and he lost to Clint Eastwood.
Well, to be fair, only Robert Redford and Kevin Costner actually had their debut with their movies.
As for my very own Oscar Blunders, I seem to agree with all your choices and I'm curious to know what you think about 1996's Best Supporting Actor going to the Cube Gooding Jr. instead of Edward Norton's thrilling debut into Hollywood. It was a travesty in my eyes. Perhaps if Cuba Gooding went on to have a great career with excellent choices and phenomenal acting, he could've redeemed himself. But "Snow Dogs" begs to differ.
And what has Norton done since then? American History X, FIght Club, and 25th Hour! Adam, back me up here.
Also, City of God not getting nominated for Best Picture (nor at least a nod for Best Foriegn Film), seems to be the reason I usually don't take the Academy too seriously.
I think you guys would be interested in this:
http://movies.go.com/oscars/feature?featureid=754300&cmp=RAC-OSCGUT
"One-Hit Wonders - These actors may have won an Academy Award, but what have they done for us lately?"
I agree with the Cuba thing. He was going up against not just Ed Norton but William H. Macy for Fargo, James Woods, and Armin-Mueller Stahl for Shine (I don't remember the name of the film Woods was in, it was about Medgar Evers.).
Those guys went on to do better things.
And what has Cuba done, Snow Dogs, Boat Trip, Pearl Harbor, The Fighting Temptations, Radio. All terrible movies.
Jamie Foxx was up for that role in Jerry McGuire.
And it's not only that. What bothers me is that Edward Norton's performence that year was so much more vibrant, memorable, and harder to pull off than Cuba's. All I really remember from Cuba's performence is the infamous "Show me the money!", which is great and all - but I've only watched Primal Fear once and Norton has etched his strong dual-role performence in my head. It completely worked for me.
How about the 2002 best actor winner: Denzel Washington for Training Day.
I like Denzel and all, thought he was fantastic in Man on Fire. But I can't for the life of me understand how he won best actor. Ethan Hawke was far superior than him in the same film although I think he was nominated for best supporting actor but lost.
Denzel was up against; Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind, Sean Penn in I Am Sam, Will Smith in Ali and Tom Wilkinson in In the Bedroom
geofan i agree wiht you, Washington did not deserve to win. They just gave it to him because some felt he should of won a couple years back. Crowe and Wilkinson were much better than him.
I just saw in Barcelona The New World, and specially in the first part I was elated. An amazing visual experience; I havent experienced something like that since Tarkovsky's Stalker, and SF movie with script by 2 russian SF writers, the Strugatsky brothers.
Since you liked Solaris and The New World I think you should not miss Stalker (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079944/); it's the slowest film ever but visually amazing.
It also should educate you into SF as a genre, and not only Hollywood's SF, since you seem not to like SF very much.
Post a Comment
<< Home