oscar bait double feature
Jan. 6th, 2013 11:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twoelevenone of our local theaters has apparently decided to try showing second-run films¹, so i saw argo just after lunch, and then we saw lincoln a bit after dinner (at a different theater). both are excellent movies, as i'd expect for oscar bait. see both in the theater.
i liked argo better, both because i found the lead performance more compelling. i think daniel day-lewis gave a hell of a performance, but it seemed a bit stylized and less engaging. but perhaps that's because it's a better performance of a mid-19th century man than affleck's late-20th century man, and i simply need to get out from under my rock more often.
i think affleck also made some clever choices in integrating historical news footage with his reconstructions and -- let's be honest -- complete fabrications (this is hollywood we're talking about).² spielberg, for his part has the offsetting advantage-disadvantage pair that there's less historical information about lincoln -- only a handful of still photos, official documents, and whatever people happened to write down -- but conversely, fewer things that people will notice have been glossed over or made up. (affleck apparently pissed off the canadians and annoyed the brits and kiwis by reducing their role in the historical events of argo.³)
since dïe überblönde asked me for my opinion of which is better oscar bait, i've killed a few braincells on the problem: lincoln is. while both movies are feel-good historicals, which the academy appears to like, lincoln covers a more romantic period in history. the events in lincoln are a high point in american history, not a well-executed sideshow to something we'd frankly rather forget. day-lewis's performance also seems like it should be "better", even if it didn't work for me... and lincoln's supporting cast is better developed and better acted. i don't think lincoln will get the trifecta (best movie, best actor, and best director) but i think it's a powerful contender for best two outta three.
heaven help us if it gets best soundtrack. john williams seemed to be skirting the copyright on copland's lincoln portrait: his repeated motif is just a note or two off from the original. i think spielberg should have just licensed the lincoln portrait with rights of adaptation and worked from there. also, the CSO is too fine an instrument to be waste on williams' music; it's like handing me a strad: i'd just ruin it.
other comments:
affleck managed to talk carter into a couple minutes of voice-over for argo's close.
i stayed for all the credits for argo just to see one thing: yup, The Company disavows all knowledge of this movie and any hypothetical events it may have portrayed. OTOH, the state department is all too happy with the glory they got.
i liked argo's opening scene, which was a storyboard summary of the history of iran.
lincoln reminded me of the changes which have occurred in the us congress since the 1860s: i think our most powerful microscopes can detect them. on a good day. with a favorable wind.
OTOH, lincoln unintentionally drove home how jaded we've become about violence. the horrors of war -- the first "modern" war -- portrayed in the movie don't hold a candle to either of the world wars (saving private ryan, for example) nor any later wars or their portrayals (apocalypse now).
1: before argo, the theater ran a trailer for the 2006 star trek. while watching it, i thought they should have gone for the full period effect, and run trailers for star wars and close encounters of the third kind.
2: anybody read mendez's memoir and seen argo? i'm curious how much was changed and how much was made up out of whole cloth. IMDB's trivia file confirmed my suspicions about a few scenes already.
3: i think affleck made a good call in dropping the complexity of the situation, but i'm surprised the canadians had their furred knickers in a twist: i thought the canadian ambassador came off well, managing to look heroic at important moments.
i liked argo better, both because i found the lead performance more compelling. i think daniel day-lewis gave a hell of a performance, but it seemed a bit stylized and less engaging. but perhaps that's because it's a better performance of a mid-19th century man than affleck's late-20th century man, and i simply need to get out from under my rock more often.
i think affleck also made some clever choices in integrating historical news footage with his reconstructions and -- let's be honest -- complete fabrications (this is hollywood we're talking about).² spielberg, for his part has the offsetting advantage-disadvantage pair that there's less historical information about lincoln -- only a handful of still photos, official documents, and whatever people happened to write down -- but conversely, fewer things that people will notice have been glossed over or made up. (affleck apparently pissed off the canadians and annoyed the brits and kiwis by reducing their role in the historical events of argo.³)
since dïe überblönde asked me for my opinion of which is better oscar bait, i've killed a few braincells on the problem: lincoln is. while both movies are feel-good historicals, which the academy appears to like, lincoln covers a more romantic period in history. the events in lincoln are a high point in american history, not a well-executed sideshow to something we'd frankly rather forget. day-lewis's performance also seems like it should be "better", even if it didn't work for me... and lincoln's supporting cast is better developed and better acted. i don't think lincoln will get the trifecta (best movie, best actor, and best director) but i think it's a powerful contender for best two outta three.
heaven help us if it gets best soundtrack. john williams seemed to be skirting the copyright on copland's lincoln portrait: his repeated motif is just a note or two off from the original. i think spielberg should have just licensed the lincoln portrait with rights of adaptation and worked from there. also, the CSO is too fine an instrument to be waste on williams' music; it's like handing me a strad: i'd just ruin it.
other comments:
affleck managed to talk carter into a couple minutes of voice-over for argo's close.
i stayed for all the credits for argo just to see one thing: yup, The Company disavows all knowledge of this movie and any hypothetical events it may have portrayed. OTOH, the state department is all too happy with the glory they got.
i liked argo's opening scene, which was a storyboard summary of the history of iran.
lincoln reminded me of the changes which have occurred in the us congress since the 1860s: i think our most powerful microscopes can detect them. on a good day. with a favorable wind.
OTOH, lincoln unintentionally drove home how jaded we've become about violence. the horrors of war -- the first "modern" war -- portrayed in the movie don't hold a candle to either of the world wars (saving private ryan, for example) nor any later wars or their portrayals (apocalypse now).
1: before argo, the theater ran a trailer for the 2006 star trek. while watching it, i thought they should have gone for the full period effect, and run trailers for star wars and close encounters of the third kind.
2: anybody read mendez's memoir and seen argo? i'm curious how much was changed and how much was made up out of whole cloth. IMDB's trivia file confirmed my suspicions about a few scenes already.
3: i think affleck made a good call in dropping the complexity of the situation, but i'm surprised the canadians had their furred knickers in a twist: i thought the canadian ambassador came off well, managing to look heroic at important moments.