Titanic and Lawrence of Arabia
Bob Morris
Robert Bolt got an Oscar nomination for what Steven Spielberg called
"the best screenplay ever written for film." He did not get the Oscar
for a number of reasons: some people think that the main one was that
Bolt was thrown in jail halfway through the film's creation for ban-the-
bomb activities in Trafalgar Square! Producer Sam Speigel had to
not only bail Bolt out, but only convinced him to come out because of
the number of people whose jobs depended on getting the second half
of the script done!
After Bolt's death, the Writers Guild held a hearing that showed
that Michael Wilson, who had written the first version of the screenplay,
deserved a co-credit and thus a posthumous co-Oscar nomination.
Now, Wilson admitted in a letter to Bolt that 95% of the dialogue
was Bolt's. What Bolt "stole" is some very important structural features
of the screenplay. The flashback structure in particular.
So, the WGA was saying, that for the success of Lawrence, *both* dialogue
and structure were equally important.
Well, I don't agree. Bolt could have written a screenplay about the
telephone book and captured peoples' imaginations. He was that good
a writer. But, be that as it may, that's what the WGA said.
And they know their own rules.
So, in Titanic we have a structure (bookending), important ideas (morphing
back and forth from the created past to the sunk Titanic; 1912 is to not
seem like the faded past but like a living "present"; seeing the sinking
from the viewpoint of the people on the ship rather than watching from
the lifeboats), and other stuff that made the film affect many people.
Now irrespective of the dialogue, critics seems to agree that the structure
has some neat ideas. It is the dialgue which divides opinion. Taken at face
value, it can be seen to be hokey. But others think, maybe not.
There are those who argue that the dialogue contributes little to the
apparent sucess of Titanic -- and others claim it detracts. Others,
like Janet Maslin, accept the dialgue as "hokey" and claim that it doesn't
matter. There is a divided consensous: either this is a great film which
affects peoples, or it could have been a great film if Cameron had hired
someone great (e.g., Tom Stoppard) to do the script.
It certainly, IMO, could not been a truly great film without Cameron's
great structure and use of spfx to achieve that structure on film.
A Night to Remember had competant dialogue but did not capture the
world's attention like this film does.
In summary, the structure of Cameron's screenplay was crucial to this
film's success. Many claim the dialogue should have been better,
many don't seem to be worried, that if every aspect of the film gets a
weight (costumes, production design, sound, sound efx, visual efx,
direction, acting, script, score, cinematography) then the weighted
averge in the majority of viewer's minds seems to prouce a very positive
effect. People love this film and are seeing it in great numbers,
many more than once. I'd say reviews drove the first batch of people to
see this film: I saw it the first day and although it was *nearly* full
for the 4:30 showing, I had no trouble getting tickets an hour before.
A week later the 12:10 am showing was full 3/4 hour before! Word of mouth
is now mainly driving this film.
So, this is the question: Does James Cameron deserve an Oscar nomination
for his script? I think so.
Now Michael Wilson got an Oscar nomination for
Lawrence of Arabia for creating *part* of the structure of the script!
Would Mike Wilson have gotten an Oscar nomination had his original script
been used? No way: first, Bolt did contribute something to the struture,
but more important, the script with Wilson's dialogue and Wilson's structure
stunk! I saw Albert Finney read 15 minutes of it in a screentest and it
was a disaster! And David Lean hated it! Lawrence with a Mike Wilson
script would not be the great film we know it as! There would likely have
not been an Oscar nomination for the script -- or even for best film!
So, here we have a script with James Cameron structure and James Cameron
dialogue, and it has created a film which is attracting a lot of great
reviews and a few negative ones, which harp on the dialogue.
Again, we come to the conclusion that Cameron has created a script
which in many competant reviewers' mind carries the film to the extent
that it has been called the best film of the year by the NYT, in the top
2 or 3 by Enterainment Weekly, and has 8 Golden Globe nominations.
The pluses in Cameron's script must be outweighing any perceived minuses.
Whereas Michael Wilson's script would have destroyed Lawrence of Arabia
with its Oscar-nomination worthy structure and pedestrian dialogue,
James Cameron's script with it's great structure and sometimes questionable
dialogue (questionable by some; "accepted" by many others of high repute)
has created both a critical and box office success.
Does Cameron deserve a screenplay nomination? Of course!
Does he deserve a screenplay Oscar?
Well it's like the 17 films which won best picture but not best director!
Those films, including Olivier's Hamlet, Rebecca, Godfather, Chariots of
Fire, Driving Miss Daisy somehow made it with incompetant directors?
Of course they didn't!
So, here's the answer: if Titanic gets best pic or best director and cops,
say, 8 or more Oscars, then one could ask how it got there without
a screenplay which contributed to its getting there!
A picture which wins say 8 Oscars including best pic and director could
not have got there without a script which almost by definition deserves
a best screenplay Oscar.
Bob Morris
Jeffrey Davis
Bob Morris wrote:
>
> It certainly, IMO, could not been a truly great film without Cameron's
> great structure and use of spfx to achieve that structure on film.
> A Night to Remember had competant dialogue but did not capture the
> world's attention like this film does.
The last line is irrelevant. Unless ID4 is an equally great film.
And there are all kinds of "structures" to literary works. The
mechanical
structure of using flashbacks is hardly "great."
The dialogue of A Night to Remember wasn't what made it an amazing
film. It captured the sense of doom about the boat like a real
life horror film. It's not surprising that people don't go around
making larky comments on it. The sense of doom is unbearable.
Bob Morris
Jeffrey Davis <jkd...@uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>Bob Morris wrote:
>>
>> It certainly, IMO, could not been a truly great film without Cameron's
>> great structure and use of spfx to achieve that structure on film.
>> A Night to Remember had competant dialogue but did not capture the
>> world's attention like this film does.
>The last line is irrelevant. Unless ID4 is an equally great film.
How many best film lists did ID4 appear on?
How many Golden Globe nominations did it get?
How many oscar nominations did it get?
Who named ID4 best film of the year?
ID4 is accepted for what it was.
It was not taken as anything execept a fun fantasy blow-everthing-up film.
We're discussing a film which is likely going to get a lot of awards.
Not ID4. :-)
>The dialogue of A Night to Remember wasn't what made it an amazing
>film. It captured the sense of doom about the boat like a real
>life horror film. It's not surprising that people don't go around
>making larky comments on it. The sense of doom is unbearable.
ANTR was a competant telling of the tale.
Many facts, in retrospect, were wrong. The tale had to be retold.
Did people flock to see it?
How many Oscars did it get?
LRM
Gary Pollard
One must also note that Cameron's sense of "structure" created the cheesy
love story in the first place. The story cannot be separated from the way it
is presented.
Had Lawrence of Arabia been only an intriguing "structure", with time filled
up with lines as banal as the "tumbleweed" line or the "Deep ocean of
secrets" one, there is no way it would have got past the Oscars.
As a filmed screenwriter I know that a script is not only an idea; it's how
well that idea is executed.
As I have said before, Cameron muddled his idea. If his idea is that Jack
rescued Rose from a life of stultifying convention, what he needed to show
was that Rose would be trapped in such a life. By making Cal a bastard, he
confuses his own thesis by saying Rose needed to be rescued from a bastard.
"Portrait of a Lady" shows a more logical way to do this. The heroine is
being chased by several conventional and dull but kind-hearted guys. She
chooses one is who not kind, because she knows that being with him will mean
she does not lead a conventional life.
Now I think that theme of liberation could have worked. But here's another
problem. Suppose a woman is about to lead such a stultifying life, but then
goes through the sinking of "Titanic" WITHOUT Jack. She saw her mother
having no sympathy for people who would die; she saw her fiancé behaving
like a bastard. She was already rebelling. She confronted death, and then
had a new chance at life, so she decided she would NOT be one of the living
dead. Given the magnitude of that event, she had just as much motivation to
change her ways.
And then we have this other bizarre contradiction that people are trying to
avoid altogether, when they say that Rose could be naive because she's only
seventeen. Naive enough to spout corny lines, naive enough to be moved by
drawings the quality of which is no better than average to poor, yet
sophisticated enough to have read Freud and bought Picasso and Monet
paintings.
These kind of inconsistencies are avoided by writers as great as Bolt at
their best. That's why Cameron is not to be mentioned in the same breath.
I've practically given up on the Oscars anyway, but if Cameron DOES get best
Screenplay, (and I am not yet quite cynical enough to believe he will) it'll
be another nail in the coffin of writing in Hollywood. And writing in
Hollywood is already on its last legs in the big genre film.
Gary
Bob Morris wrote in message ...
Gary Pollard
Bob
Screw the Oscars, as you will be the first to say if "Titanic" gets few or
none. The Academy is NOT the ultimate arbiter of artistic achievement, for
example it rarely considers films that don't do boffo box office.
Many of the very greatest movies ever made have not received an Oscar. And,
as a non-American film, A Night to Remember would not have been at the
forefront of the Academy's mind anyway.
Why do people believe this about the movies? Do you think that if a bunch of
sixty year old guys decided not to give Picasso an award for best painter it
would make him one whit less good?
Gary
Bob Morris wrote in message ...
>Jeffrey Davis <jkd...@uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
>
>>Bob Morris wrote:
>>>
>>> It certainly, IMO, could not been a truly great film without Cameron's
>>> great structure and use of spfx to achieve that structure on film.
>>> A Night to Remember had competant dialogue but did not capture the
>>> world's attention like this film does.
>
Caius Marcius
In <68o9l1$le...@news.asiaonline.net> "Gary Pollard"
<gpol...@asiaonline.net> writes:
>
>One must also note that Cameron's sense of "structure" created the
cheesy
>love story in the first place. The story cannot be separated from the
way it
>is presented.
My biggest problem with the good ship Titanic was its rigid devotion to
class hierarchy - and I don't mean all that trite self-serving crap
about the poor unfortunates in 3rd-class, I mean real Hollywood class
worship - i.e., the distinction between movie stars and mere bit
players.
This is a three-hour plus movie that has no time to develop any
significant subplot - there may be 2200 souls on board the Titanic, but
except for the A-list actors, who gives a floating fuck about the rest
of them? For example, once Leonard DiCaprio meets Kate Winslet, his
Italian friend pretty much disappears. But since his Italian friend
ain't Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp, who cares? Some of the richest and
most powerful businessmen in Anglo-American society may have been on
board, but since none of them are portrayed by well-known actors,
fuggidaboutit. Obviously the ultimate fate of DiCaprio & Winslet is of
the highest importance, and if we are unclear about the ultimate fate
of the others, so what?
And as for Lawrence of Arabia - David Lean was part of a generation
that still felt some reverence for the past. Cameron belongs to a
generation which thinks it can rectify all prior injustices by placing
Arnold Schwarzenegger in a time machine.........
- CMC
m2...@utdallas.edu
Bob Morris (mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca) wrote:
Cameron deserves to get nominated for the screenplay for one simple
reason, and that is that the movie was interesting and exciting despite
everyone knowing that the films outcome of the film sinking and most of
the people dying. Now getting nominated is one thing and winning the
Oscar is another because I believe Mamet already has that sealed up with
Wag the Dog.
All You Need is Hsiao
In article <68o9l1$le...@news.asiaonline.net>,
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>Naive enough to spout corny lines, naive enough to be moved by
>drawings the quality of which is no better than average to poor, yet
>sophisticated enough to have read Freud and bought Picasso and Monet
>paintings.
You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of contention,
Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real person
could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
James
--
James T. Hsiao Remove '+NOSPAM' to reply
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/
"For in much wisdom is much grief, and he who increases in knowledge
increases sorrow" Ecclesiastes 1:18
Dave Platt
On 5 Jan 1998, All You Need is Hsiao wrote:
@ In article <68o9l1$le...@news.asiaonline.net>,
@ Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
@ >Naive enough to spout corny lines, naive enough to be moved by
@ >drawings the quality of which is no better than average to poor, yet
@ >sophisticated enough to have read Freud and bought Picasso and Monet
@ >paintings.
@
@ You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of contention,
@ Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
@ enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real person
@ could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
Well, Picasso and Monet subvert reality in their paintings. Jack's
drawings offer a simplistic attempt to recreate reality. In modernist
terms, Jack's drawings are pathetic. If Jack had displayed any knowledge
of impressionism or cubism, then it would make sense. As a matter of
fact, I'm not even sure impressionism and cubism are completely
compatible (I'm no art critic). I get the feeling that Cameron chose
Picasso and Monet because they represent "Art" and didn't put any more
thought into it.
All You Need is Hsiao
In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.980105...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
>@ You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of contention,
>@ Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
>@ enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real person
>@ could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
>
>Well, Picasso and Monet subvert reality in their paintings. Jack's
>drawings offer a simplistic attempt to recreate reality. In modernist
>terms, Jack's drawings are pathetic.
In modernist terms, perhaps...more on this later.
>If Jack had displayed any knowledge
>of impressionism or cubism, then it would make sense. As a matter of
>fact, I'm not even sure impressionism and cubism are completely
>compatible (I'm no art critic).
This is a point I wanted to mention initially. Both impressionism and
cubism are drastically different styles--Rose's appreciation for Monet and
Picasso is *not* mutually exclusive with her liking of Jack's work. She
can appreciate art and beauty. I don't think she views the paintings in
terms of modernism or impressionism or any "-ism." She purchased the
paintings because they emotionally touched her. Jack's drawings do much
the same--she pays special attention to the stories behind the drawings,
too. She's no art critic, she just likes what she sees.
>I get the feeling that Cameron chose
>Picasso and Monet because they represent "Art" and didn't put any more
>thought into it.
I can see where you would think so ("Look at his use of color right
here...It's great"). But again, I think Rose is less an art critic and
more an amateur--the paintings speak to her. She's unconcerned with
technique; she's more interested in the emotional impact of the works--
interesting, considering the various attitudes of the movie.
Gordon Werner
Didn't Rose say that she liked the paintings because they were like looking at
a dream?
She never said or inferred that she liked them beause they were cubist or
whatever. Even if she did like them for their artistic style, why wouldn't or
couldn't she also like Jack's drawings.
to enjoy art is not appreciate beautiful work...not a particular style.
Gordon
Dave Platt
On 5 Jan 1998, All You Need is Hsiao wrote:
# In article <Pine.SV4.3.91.980105...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
# Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
# >@ You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of contention,
# >@ Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
# >@ enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real person
# >@ could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
# >
# >Well, Picasso and Monet subvert reality in their paintings. Jack's
#>drawings offer a simplistic attempt to recreate reality. In modernist
# >terms, Jack's drawings are pathetic.
#
# In modernist terms, perhaps...more on this later.
#
# >If Jack had displayed any knowledge
# >of impressionism or cubism, then it would make sense. As a matter of
# >fact, I'm not even sure impressionism and cubism are completely
# >compatible (I'm no art critic).
#
# This is a point I wanted to mention initially. Both impressionism and
# cubism are drastically different styles--Rose's appreciation for Monet and
# Picasso is *not* mutually exclusive with her liking of Jack's work. She
# can appreciate art and beauty. I don't think she views the paintings in
# terms of modernism or impressionism or any "-ism." She purchased the
# paintings because they emotionally touched her. Jack's drawings do much
# the same--she pays special attention to the stories behind the drawings,
# too. She's no art critic, she just likes what she sees.
I understand this, but it seems like a very 90s attitude. I thought that
at the time of the impressionists and the cubists people were *very*
divided about what was "good" art... didn't they find it hard to get
exhibitions, etc?
# >I get the feeling that Cameron chose
# >Picasso and Monet because they represent "Art" and didn't put any more
# >thought into it.
#
# I can see where you would think so ("Look at his use of color right
# here...It's great"). But again, I think Rose is less an art critic and
# more an amateur--the paintings speak to her. She's unconcerned with
# technique; she's more interested in the emotional impact of the works--
# interesting, considering the various attitudes of the movie.
Maybe. You make a convincing argument, but I still think Cameron was
going for a simpler idea than that. I could be wrong.
Gary Pollard
It's easy to explain. The drawings are second rate drawings that could be
done better by most storyboard illustrators in Hollywood.
Not many who like Picasso, and can truly appreciate him, also like naked
lady on black velvet.
Gary
All You Need is Hsiao wrote in message
<68r8ca$bte$1...@thunder.cise.ufl.edu>...
>In article <68o9l1$le...@news.asiaonline.net>,
>Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>>Naive enough to spout corny lines, naive enough to be moved by
>>drawings the quality of which is no better than average to poor, yet
>>sophisticated enough to have read Freud and bought Picasso and Monet
>>paintings.
>
>You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of contention,
>Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
>enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real person
>could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
>
Hsiao Mariachi
In article <68s5dp$jj...@news.asiaonline.net>,
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>It's easy to explain. The drawings are second rate drawings that could be
>done better by most storyboard illustrators in Hollywood.
But I'm not asking about the quality of the drawings--I'm asking about the
character's appreciation of them. From what I recall, the drawings are
simple sketches, quick surveys of things that Jack sees on his various
travels. These moments that he captures likely "talk" to Rose emotionally.
If you recall, she compliment's his eye--"You see people..."
>Not many who like Picasso, and can truly appreciate him, also like naked
>lady on black velvet.
For my thoughts on this, see the thread with Dave Platt about Rose's
possible art motivations. In a nutshell: Rose is less likely to have an
art education and more likely to simply appreciate the emotional impact of
the paintings (some impressionist and some cubist). They "talk" to her
much in the same way that Jack's drawings talk to her. In showing a
non-discriminatory eye toward *both* Picasso and Monet, Rose lends credence
to the opinion that she sees art as an emotional catalyst, instead of
a mastery of techinique.
David Homerick
> On 5 Jan 1998, All You Need is Hsiao wrote:
> @ You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of contention,
> @ Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
> @ enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real person
> @ could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
>
> Well, Picasso and Monet subvert reality in their paintings. Jack's
> drawings offer a simplistic attempt to recreate reality. In modernist
> terms, Jack's drawings are pathetic. If Jack had displayed any knowledge
> of impressionism or cubism, then it would make sense.
A more accurate statement would be that if *Rose* had displayed any
knowledge of impressionism or cubism, then it would *not* make sense.
Rose was attracted to the paintings becasue they were different, and the
rebellion inherent in the new styles appealed to her. This is the same
reason she finds Jack's drawings (and Jack) attractive -- the rebellion,
not in the style, but in his lifestyle and the subject matter ("a
one-legged prostitute").
-- David
Gary Pollard
Then any fantasy painting would have done. What Cameron has done here has
just stuck a couple of paintings that he thinks people who don't know
anything about art will be able to appreciates as Picassos and Monets. The
fact that they are remarkably similar paintings makes anyone who DOES know
much about the history of painting think: "I didn't know that went down on
the "Titanic".
Gary
Hsiao Mariachi wrote in message <68td9s$568$1...@thunder.cise.ufl.edu>...
The Bridge Over the River Hsiao
In article <68ul2p$b0...@news.asiaonline.net>,
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>Then any fantasy painting would have done. What Cameron has done here has
>just stuck a couple of paintings that he thinks people who don't know
>anything about art will be able to appreciates as Picassos and Monets.
I'll have to concede this point. While Rose, as characterized, exhibits a
behaviour different from what the presence of the Picasso suggests,
Cameron's use of the specific Picasso paintings rather beats the audience
over the head with a "THIS IS ART!!!" message.
When considering how Rose is portrayed in response to both Cal (and his art
opinions) and Jack (and his drawings), however, I tend to escape the
bludgeoning of the message. Overlooking the specifics of the paintings
allows me to see Rose less as an art critic, and more as an art amateur.
YMMV. :)
>The fact that they are remarkably similar paintings makes anyone who DOES
>know much about the history of painting think: "I didn't know that went
>down on the "Titanic".
I think that's the real problem--the Picasso. Were the paintings simply
some semblance of a Monet landscape and a generic Degas ballerina, I have a
feeling the paintings would grate less on those who know.
James
--
James T. Hsiao Remove '+NOSPAM' to reply
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/
pro.gres.sive \pr<e>-'gres-iv\ adj (1607)
:of or relating to alternative music before it became mainstream
Gary Pollard
And there's bad storytelling and good storytelling. Jolt people out of the
reality you are trying to create unintentionally, and it's bad storytelling
Gary
Robert Chapman wrote in message ...
>In article <68ul2p$b0...@news.asiaonline.net>, "Gary Pollard"
><gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>
>> Then any fantasy painting would have done. What Cameron has done here has
>> just stuck a couple of paintings that he thinks people who don't know
>> anything about art will be able to appreciates as Picassos and Monets.
The
>> fact that they are remarkably similar paintings makes anyone who DOES
know
>> much about the history of painting think: "I didn't know that went down
on
>> the "Titanic".
>>
>> Gary
>
>Never expect movies to exactly match history, they're only an incentive to
>find out the history. Movies are about story telling.
>
>Rob
Robert Chapman
MuseMalade
Hsaio wrote:
>>The fact that they are remarkably similar paintings makes anyone who DOES
>>know much about the history of painting think: "I didn't know that went
>>down on the "Titanic".
>
>some semblance of a Monet landscape and a generic Degas ballerina, I have a
>feeling the paintings would grate less on those who know.
>
lilies. But Les Demoisselle d'Avignon is pretty famous, to say the least. It
bothered the hell out of me, not because I'm some pedantic art student, but
because its inclusion is really an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
My friend next to me snickered and said, "it's half the size of the real
Picasso," which is true. For a guy who pays the original carpet maker of the
Titanic to make a replica for his movies, Cameron couldn't bother to research
the matter for five minutes?
I still like the movie quite a bit if only because I didn't demand thematic or
character complexity in this particular film, but sloppily using a *very*
famous painting to suggest some shallow point about Rose was perhaps the low
point of the movie, next to the already infamous "look at his use of color
here" line.
Gary Pollard
Actually it does. It is a cut-down version. Check out MOMA's web page.
Gary
David Homerick
In article <morris.8...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca>,
mor...@galileo.sce.carleton.ca (Bob Morris) wrote:
> Does Cameron deserve a screenplay nomination? Of course!
>
> Does he deserve a screenplay Oscar?
>
> Well it's like the 17 films which won best picture but not best director!
> Those films, including Olivier's Hamlet, Rebecca, Godfather, Chariots of
> Fire, Driving Miss Daisy somehow made it with incompetant directors?
> Of course they didn't!
There are LOTS of directors every year who don't win an Oscar. It simply
means that the Academy thought someone else was better.
> So, here's the answer: if Titanic gets best pic or best director and cops,
> say, 8 or more Oscars, then one could ask how it got there without
> a screenplay which contributed to its getting there!
One could ask that, but it would be a stupid question. If there are
twelve good original screenplays in a given year, only five will be
nominated.
> A picture which wins say 8 Oscars including best pic and director could
> not have got there without a script which almost by definition deserves
> a best screenplay Oscar.
Horseshit.
It's perfectly possible for the best film of the year to have a screenplay
that is not as good as the screenplay from another film.
-- David
Mitchell Holman
}
}There are LOTS of directors every year who don't win an Oscar. It simply
}means that the Academy thought someone else was better.
}
There is a line in Wag the Dog where Dustin Hoffman laments
that there isn't even a catagory for Best Producer at the Oscars.
While their reward is obviously in the money a picture makes,
should this be corrected?
Jeffrey Davis
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> There is a line in Wag the Dog where Dustin Hoffman laments
> that there isn't even a catagory for Best Producer at the Oscars.
> While their reward is obviously in the money a picture makes,
> should this be corrected?
Stanley Motss was wrong. The Best Picture Oscar goes to the producer.
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu>
Now available on SpitToons: (div. of SJSP&L)
"I used to know when to say when" by Somebody Shake Louise
Dave Gates
Robert Chapman wrote:
>
> In article <dhomeric-120...@istk-port1300.jps.net>,
> dhom...@jps.net (David Homerick) wrote:
>
> > > say, 8 or more Oscars, then one could ask how it got there without
> > > a screenplay which contributed to its getting there!
> >
> > nominated.
> >
> > > A picture which wins say 8 Oscars including best pic and director could
> > > not have got there without a script which almost by definition deserves
> > > a best screenplay Oscar.
> >
> >
> > It's perfectly possible for the best film of the year to have a screenplay
> > that is not as good as the screenplay from another film.
>
> other but just different. As happens all the time. Ranking the very best
> is all pretty arbitrary.
Also, no one actually *ranks* them. Each individual votes for his
favorite and then they see which one was the favorite of the most guys.
AND only the writers vote for the writing category, whereas the Art
Directors vote for Best Art Direction, etc. Everyone votes for Best
Picture. So it's pretty possible for a film that doesn't win Best
Screenplay to win Best Picture. Didn't Rocky do it?
--
Dave Gates
dave...@davegates.com
Bob Morris
ta2...@airmail.net (Mitchell Holman) writes:
>In article <dhomeric-120...@istk-port1300.jps.net>, dhom...@jps.net (David Homerick) wrote:
>}
>}There are LOTS of directors every year who don't win an Oscar. It simply
>}means that the Academy thought someone else was better.
>}
Yes, but in only 17 out of 60 years has the director of the best pic
*not* also won best director!
> There is a line in Wag the Dog where Dustin Hoffman laments
> that there isn't even a category for Best Producer at the Oscars.
> While their reward is obviously in the money a picture makes,
> should this be corrected?
D'oh! It's the producer that gets the Best Picture Oscar!
(From 1949 onwards, that is. Before that it was the studio.)
"Hoffman" was testing the audience -- and you flunked! :-)
For the record, the record for individual best picture Oscars (sole
producer!) is held by Sam Spiegel -- 3 in only 8 years,
a feat that arguably will never be equalled!
On the Waterfront ('54); Bridge on the River Kwai ('57);
Lawrence of Arabia ('62)
Saul Zaentz also got 3 best pic Oscars (in 3 decades!) but was not
sole producer in all cases. Cuckoo's Nest, with Mike Douglas, ('75);
Amadeus ('84); The English Patient ('96).
Bob Morris
Robert Chapman
> > So, here's the answer: if Titanic gets best pic or best director and cops,
> > say, 8 or more Oscars, then one could ask how it got there without
> > a screenplay which contributed to its getting there!
>
> One could ask that, but it would be a stupid question. If there are
> twelve good original screenplays in a given year, only five will be
> nominated.
>
> > A picture which wins say 8 Oscars including best pic and director could
> > not have got there without a script which almost by definition deserves
> > a best screenplay Oscar.
>
> Horseshit.
>
> It's perfectly possible for the best film of the year to have a screenplay
> that is not as good as the screenplay from another film.
It's also possible for a number of screenplays not to be better than each
other but just different. As happens all the time. Ranking the very best
is all pretty arbitrary.
Rob
>
> -- David
Norman Wilner
Dave Gates wrote in message <34BB9628...@davegates.com>...
(snip)
>AND only the writers vote for the writing category, whereas the Art
>Directors vote for Best Art Direction, etc. Everyone votes for Best
>Picture. So it's pretty possible for a film that doesn't win Best
>Screenplay to win Best Picture. Didn't Rocky do it?
Yep - and you don't even have to go back that far. Last year's big winner,
"The English Patient", lost the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay to Billy
Bob Thornton and "Sling Blade".
Mmmn-hmm.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Froilan Vispo
Dave Platt wrote in message ...
>On 5 Jan 1998, All You Need is Hsiao wrote:
># In article
<Pine.SV4.3.91.980105...@winnie.freenet.mb.ca>,
># Dave Platt <lit...@freenet.mb.ca> wrote:
># >@ You continue to mention the Rose's art tastes as a matter of
contention,
># >@ Gary--I can't see how appreciating Monet and Picasso precludes one's
># >@ enjoyment of Jack's simple drawings. Can you explain why a real
># >@ person could not reconcile a liking of both styles?
># >
># >Well, Picasso and Monet subvert reality in their paintings. Jack's
>#>drawings offer a simplistic attempt to recreate reality. In modernist
># >terms, Jack's drawings are pathetic.
>#
># In modernist terms, perhaps...more on this later.
>#
># >If Jack had displayed any knowledge
># >of impressionism or cubism, then it would make sense. As a matter of
># >fact, I'm not even sure impressionism and cubism are completely
># >compatible (I'm no art critic).
>#
># This is a point I wanted to mention initially. Both impressionism and
># cubism are drastically different styles--Rose's appreciation for Monet
and
># Picasso is *not* mutually exclusive with her liking of Jack's work. She
># can appreciate art and beauty. I don't think she views the paintings in
># terms of modernism or impressionism or any "-ism." She purchased the
># paintings because they emotionally touched her. Jack's drawings do much
># the same--she pays special attention to the stories behind the drawings,
># too. She's no art critic, she just likes what she sees.
>
>I understand this, but it seems like a very 90s attitude. I thought that
>at the time of the impressionists and the cubists people were *very*
>divided about what was "good" art... didn't they find it hard to get
>exhibitions, etc?
I'm not sure what you mean by "90s attitude," but I'll answer the questions.
There was never a Cubist v. Impressionist debate about "good" art. By the
time Picasso completes _Demoiselles_ in 1907, Impressionism as a movement
was already over 30 years old and long finished (1874 was the first
Impressionist exhibition, the last in 1886). _Certain_ paintings by
Impressionists were rejected for exhibition in the official annual Salon,
but there were willing galleries. A popular solution to the Salon
rejections was to set up their own mock Salon with other refused artists
(the
Salon des Refusés), often right alongside the actual Salon.
Now, to the paintings. JPEGs available at the following sites (they make
nice wallpaper if so inclined):
As they move into their suite, Rose holds up a smaller version of Picasso's
_Les Demoiselles d'Avignon_
(http://209.132.4.118/art/picasso/davignon.jpg.html). During this scene we
also see Edgar Degas' _L'Étoile_
(http://209.132.4.118/art/degas/l_etoile.jpg.html), Claude Monet's _Water
Lilies_ (http://209.132.4.118/art/monet/waterlil.jpg.html). I'm unsure
about a Cubist painting seen on a couch, possibly Picasso's _Portrait of
Ambroise Vollard_ (http://209.132.4.118/art/picasso/vollard.jpg.html). The
latter may even be a Futurist painting by Umberto Boccioni, but I don't have
any books on him handy and his paintings aren't available on the net for
comparison.
I'd need to see TITANIC a second time to confirm the following paintings as
well: in the background prior to the sketching scene is Paul Cezanne's
_Still Life with Apples_ (http://209.132.4.118/art/cezanne/apples.jpg.html);
Rose and Jack gush over Monet's "use of colour" with the painting _Water
Lilies (The Clouds)_ (http://209.132.4.118/art/monet/clouds.jpg.html); when
Titanic starts to fill up with water a Degas ballerina is seen floating,
possibly _L'Étoile_ again, although I doubt it.
># >I get the feeling that Cameron chose
># >Picasso and Monet because they represent "Art" and didn't put any more
># >thought into it.
I'll rephrase this: Cameron chose Picasso, Monet et al. because to him they
represent Modern Art and afterwards he didn't put any more thought into it.
What is bothersome is that with all the supposed care that Cameron placed
into the ship's details (among them having the Titanic's
exclusively-designed dishes and carpets remade), choosing these recognizable
paintings was a misstep.
Nothing anachronistic about choosing these paintings - they all predate the
sinking of the Titanic. But these paintings did not go down with the
Titanic.
These paintings are very much extant today and are in fact quite popular for
use in wall calendars, posters and the like, so I can't blame puzzled
viewers for asking, "I didn't know that went down with the Titanic?" Cameron
should have anticipated this sort of reaction.
Picasso painted only one version of _Demoiselles_ and it is much larger and
hangs in the MOMA today. No smaller copies.
No, Picasso will not paint you a smaller copy of his painting because he's a
no-name and starving - he was neither of these in 1912.
That the TITANIC version is a study is more plausible but doesn't, uh, hold
water against the documentation; Picasso's studies for _Demoiselles_ were
obviously studies and did not come close to the degree of completion as the
actual work nor the one Cameron shows off in TITANIC.
># I can see where you would think so ("Look at his use of color right
># here...It's great"). But again, I think Rose is less an art critic and
># more an amateur--the paintings speak to her. She's unconcerned with
># technique; she's more interested in the emotional impact of the works--
># interesting, considering the various attitudes of the movie.
>
>Maybe. You make a convincing argument, but I still think Cameron was
>going for a simpler idea than that. I could be wrong.
Cameron was going for a simple idea, and the idea was to invest Rose with as
much likeable and recognizable modernity as possible, an idea which jibes
well with his unmistakable old guard first class v. sympathetic third class
theme running through TITANIC. (Aside: I find it curious that another movie
running concurrently - THE WINGS OF THE DOVE - also deals with this cusp of
modernity issue, but subtly. Discuss.)
Thus Rose smokes (mom and Cal, those bastions of the snooty moneyed class,
protest), she quotes Freud (nouveau-riche Molly Brown looks on approvingly
while Cal threatens to censor what she reads), she is eager to spit (mom is
horrified and seems ready to do some insect-squashing), guzzle beer (the
drink of the working classes - no cognacs here) and quick to raise the bird.
In a way it is unsurprising that Cameron lumps together Impressionist to
Cubist paintings in Rose's mock collection (purchasing a Cubist Picasso in
1912 may be adventurous but Degas, Monet and Cezanne were rather safe,
stylistically conservative purchases by this time.) Purposefully Cameron
endows Rose with works by Picasso, Monet, Cezanne and Degas - artists whose
works are rather well-liked and commonplace today through reproductions but
also names that cause dollar signs to flash in minds. What is important is
that Cal derides the lot and that Rose seems to know better. By giving Rose
an eye for what is popular and pricey today, Cameron renders her more
likeable to present audiences.
Froilan
-----
vispo(at)bigfoot.com
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/5666/
Delete the NOSPAM from my e-mail address when replying.
Bob Morris
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xidirect.xcom> writes:
>(snip)
But everyone knows that was political: just like Jane Campion winning
for best screenplay.
In case case, the screenplay Oscar was effectively a consolation prize
for bigger Oscars not won.
Bob Morris
Starshrink
David said:
There are LOTS of directors every year who don't win an Oscar. It simply
means that the Academy thought someone else was better.
BLUE VELVET was nominated for a Director Oscar but none of the performers were.
On the other hand, William Hurt and Marlee Matlin, who won and never again gave
a first-rate performance, were both nominated for CHILDREN OF A LESSER GOD,
but their woman director Randa Haines wasn't. Women directors don't do too well
with the DGA.
Oprah Winfrey and Whoopi in their debut performances were nominated for THE
COLOR PURPLE. their director Steven Spielberg wasn't. Now, Steven Spielberg is
much too successful for the DGA. Jealousy delayed his getting an Oscar.
The Directors Guild of America has come to be regarded by me as an old-fogey,
sexist, organization of mediocrities, jealous of others' talent.
I get totally turned on by talent. I want to vomit when I hear the Hollywood
line: For me to be happy it's not enough that I succeed. It's important that
my friends fail." Not a precise quote but a good enough approximation.
Carrie Pruett
Robert Chapman <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<robertc-1401...@news.ihug.co.nz>...
> from another film.
>
> It's also possible for a number of screenplays not to be better than each
> other but just different. As happens all the time. Ranking the very
best
> is all pretty arbitrary.
>
> Rob
>
Shh! Don't say that so loud - if more people start figuring
this out, you'll ruin the whole awards show industry! And
then how will Riverdance stay in business?
Carrie
Norman Wilner
You do realize that the Director's Guild of America is a different body than
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, which nominates and awards
all the Oscars, including the one for Best Director.
Don't you?
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Starshrink wrote in message
<19980115204...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...