#i can see why film won that best actor award | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rhysdarbinizedarby · 6 months

Text

Couch surfer in his 30s. Oscar winner in his 40s. Why the whole world wants Taika

**Notes: This is very long post!**

Good Weekend

In his 30s, he was sleeping on couches. By his 40s, he’d directed a Kiwi classic, taken a Marvel movie to billion-dollar success, and won an Oscar. Meet Taika Waititi, king of the oddball – and one of New Zealand’s most original creative exports.

Taika Waititi: “Be a nice person and live a good life. And just don’t be an arsehole.”

The good news? Taika Waititi is still alive. I wasn’t sure. The screen we were speaking through jolted savagely a few minutes ago, with a cacophonous bang and a confused yelp, then radio silence. Now the Kiwi filmmaker is back, grinning like a loon: “I just broke the f---ing table, bro!”

Come again? “I just smashed this f---ing table and glass flew everywhere. It’s one of those old annoying colonial tables. It goes like this – see that?” Waititi says, holding up a folding furniture leg. “I hit the mechanism and it wasn’t locked. Anyway …”

I’m glad he’s fine. The stuff he’s been saying from his London hotel room could incur biblical wrath. We’re talking about his latest project, Next Goal Wins, a movie about the American Samoa soccer team’s quest to score a solitary goal, 10 years after suffering the worst loss in the game’s international history – a 31-0 ignominy to Australia – but our chat strays into spirituality, then faith, then religion.

“I don’t personally believe in a big guy sitting on a cloud judging everyone, but that’s just me,” Waititi says, deadpan. “Because I’m a grown-up.”

This is the way his interview answers often unfold. Waititi addresses your topic – dogma turns good people bad, he says, yet belief itself is worth lauding – but bookends every response with a conspiratorial nudge, wink, joke or poke. “Regardless of whether it’s some guy living on a cloud, or some other deity that you’ve made up – and they’re all made up – the message across the board is the same, and it’s important: Be a nice person, and live a good life. And just don’t be an arsehole!”

Not being an arsehole seems to have served Waititi, 48, well. Once a national treasure and indie darling (through the quirky tenderness of his breakout New Zealand films Boy in 2010 and Hunt for the Wilderpeople in 2016), Waititi then became a star of both the global box office (through his 2017 entry into the Marvel Universe, Thor: Ragnarok, which grossed more than $1.3 billion worldwide) and then the Academy Awards (winning the 2020 best adapted screenplay Oscar for his subversive Holocaust dramedy JoJo Rabbit, in which he played an imaginary Hitler).

Waititi playing Adolf Hitler in the 2019 movie JoJo Rabbit. (Alamy)

A handsome devil with undeniable roguish charm, Waititi also slid seamlessly into style-icon status (attending this year’s Met Gala shirtless, in a floor-length gunmetal-grey Atelier Prabal Gurung wrap coat, with pendulous pearl necklaces), as well as becoming his own brand (releasing an eponymous line of canned coffee drinks) and bona fide Hollywood A-lister (he was introduced to his second wife, British singer Rita Ora, by actor Robert Pattinson at a barbecue).

Putting that platform to use, Waititi is an Indigenous pioneer and mentor, too, co-creating the critically acclaimed TV series Reservation Dogs, while co-founding the Piki Films production company, committed to promoting the next generation of storytellers – a mission that might sound all weighty and worthy, yet Waititi’s new wave of First Nations work is never earnest, always mixing hurt with heart and howling humour.

Waititi with wife Rita Ora at the 2023 Met Gala in May. (Getty Images)

Makes sense. Waititi is a byproduct of “the weirdest coupling ever” – his late Maori father from the Te Whanau-a-Apanui tribe was an artist, farmer and “Satan’s Slaves” bikie gang founder, while his Wellington schoolteacher mum descended from Russian Jews, although he’s not devout about her faith. (“No, I don’t practise,” he confirms. “I’m just good at everything, straight away.”)

He’s remained loyally tethered to his origin story, too – and to a cadre of creative Kiwi mates, including actors Jemaine Clement and Rhys Darby – never forgetting that not long before the actor/writer/producer/director was an industry maven, he was a penniless painter/photographer/ musician/comedian.

With no set title and no fixed address, he’s seemingly happy to be everything, everywhere (to everyone) all at once. “‘The universe’ is bandied around a lot these days, but I do believe in the kind of connective tissue of the universe, and the energy that – scientifically – we are made up of a bunch of atoms that are bouncing around off each other, and some of the atoms are just squished together a bit tighter than others,” he says, smiling. “We’re all made of the same stardust, and that’s pretty special.”

-----------------------------------------------

We’ve caught Waititi in a somewhat relaxed moment, right before the screen actors’ and media artists’ strike ends. He’s sensitive to the struggle but doesn’t deny enjoying the break. “I spent a lot of time thinking about writing, and not writing, and having a nice holiday,” he tells Good Weekend. “Honestly, it was a good chance just to recombobulate.”

Waititi, at right, with Hunt for the Wilderpeople actors, from left, Sam Neill, Rhys Darby and Julian Dennison. (Getty Images)

It’s mid-October, and he’s just headed to Paris to watch his beloved All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup. He’s deeply obsessed with the game, and sport in general. “Humans spend all of our time knowing what’s going to happen with our day. There’s no surprises any more. We’ve become quite stagnant. And I think that’s why people love sport, because of the air of unpredictability,” he says. “It’s the last great arena entertainment.”

The main filmic touchstone for Next Goal Wins (which premieres in Australian cinemas on New Year’s Day) would be Cool Runnings (1993), the unlikely true story of a Jamaican bobsled team, but Waititi also draws from genre classics such as Any Given Sunday and Rocky, sampling trusted tropes like the musical training montage. (His best one is set to Everybody Wants to Rule the World by Tears for Fears.)

Filming in Hawaii was an uplifting experience for the self-described Polynesian Jew. “It wasn’t about death, or people being cruel to each other. Thematically, it was this simple idea, of getting a small win, and winning the game wasn’t even their goal – their goal was to get a goal,” he says. “It was a really sweet backbone.”

Waititi understands this because, growing up, he was as much an athlete as a nerd, fooling around with softball and soccer before discovering rugby league, then union. “There’s something about doing exercise when you don’t know you’re doing exercise,” he enthuses. “It’s all about the fun of throwing a ball around and trying to achieve something together.” (Whenever Waititi is in Auckland he joins his mates in a long-running weekend game of touch rugby. “And then throughout the week I work out every day. Obviously. I mean, look at me.”)

Auckland is where his kids live, too, so he spends as much time there as possible. Waititi met his first wife, producer Chelsea Winstanley, on the set of Boy in 2010, and they had two daughters, Matewa Kiritapu, 8, and his firstborn, Te Kainga O’Te Hinekahu, 11. (The latter is a derivative of his grandmother’s name, but he jokes with American friends that it means “Resurrection of Tupac” or “Mazda RX7″) Waititi and Winstanley split in about 2018, and he married the pop star Ora in 2022.

He offers a novel method for balancing work with parenthood … “Look, you just abandon them, and know that the experience will make them harder individuals later on in life. And it’s their problem,” he says. “I’m going to give them all of the things that they need, and I’m going to leave behind a decent bank account for their therapy, and they will be just like me, and the cycle will continue.”

Jokes aside – I think he’s joking – school holidays are always his, and he brings the girls onto the set of every movie he makes. “They know enough not to get in the way or touch anything that looks like it could kill you, and they know to be respectful and quiet when they need to. But they’re just very comfortable around filmmakers, which I’m really happy about, because eventually I hope they will get into the industry. One more year,” he laughs, “then they can leave school and come work for Dad.”

Theirs is certainly a different childhood than his. Growing up, he was a product of two worlds. His given names, for instance, were based on his appearance at birth: “Taika David” if he looked Maori (after his Maori grandfather) and “David Taika” if he looked Pakeha (after his white grandfather). His parents split when he was five, so he bounced between his dad’s place in Waihau Bay, where he went by the surname Waititi, and his mum, eight hours drive away in Wellington, where he went by Cohen (the last name on his birth certificate and passport).

Waititi was precocious, even charismatic. His mother Robin once told Radio New Zealand that people always wanted to know him, even as an infant: “I’d be on a bus with him, and he was that kind of baby who smiled at people, and next thing you know they’re saying, ‘Can I hold your baby?’ He’s always been a charmer to the public eye.”

He describes himself as a cool, sporty, good-looking nerd, raised on whatever pop culture screened on the two TV channels New Zealand offered in the early 1980s, from M*A*S*H and Taxi to Eddie Murphy and Michael Jackson. He was well-read, too. When punished by his mum, he would likely be forced to analyse a set of William Blake poems.

He puts on a whimpering voice to describe their finances – “We didn’t have much monneeey” – explaining how his mum spent her days in the classroom but also worked in pubs, where he would sit sipping a raspberry lemonade, doodling drawings and writing stories. She took in ironing and cleaned houses; he would help out, learning valuable lessons he imparts to his kids. “And to random people who come to my house,” he says. “I’ll say, ‘Here’s a novel idea, wash this dish,’ but people don’t know how to do anything these days.”

“Every single character I’ve ever written has been based on someone I’ve known or met or a story I’ve stolen from someone.” - Taika Waititi

He loved entertaining others, clearly, but also himself, recording little improvised radio plays on a tape deck – his own offbeat versions of ET and Indiana Jones and Star Wars. “Great free stuff where you don’t have any idea what the story is as you’re doing it,” he says. “You’re just sort of making it up and enjoying the freedom of playing god in this world where you can make people and characters do whatever you want.”

His other sphere of influence lay in Raukokore, the tiny town where his father lived. Although Boy is not autobiographical, it’s deeply personal insofar as it’s filmed in the house where he grew up, and where he lived a life similar to that portrayed in the story, surrounded by his recurring archetypes: warm grandmothers and worldly kids; staunch, stoic mums; and silly, stunted men. “Every single character I’ve ever written has been based on someone I’ve known or met,” he says, “or a story I’ve stolen from someone.”

He grew to love drawing and painting, obsessed early on with reproducing the Sistine Chapel. During a 2011 TED Talk on creativity, Waititi describes his odd subject matter, from swastikas and fawns to a picture of an old lady going for a walk … upon a sword … with Robocop. “My father was an outsider artist, even though he wouldn’t know what that meant,” Waititi told the audience in Doha. “I love the naive. I love people who can see things through an innocent viewpoint. It’s inspiring.”

After winning Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award for JoJo Rabbit in 2020. (Getty Images)

It was an interesting time in New Zealand, too – a coming-of-age decade in which the Maori were rediscovering their culture. His area was poor, “but only financially,” he says. “It’s very rich in terms of the people and the culture.” He learned kapa haka – the songs, dances and chants performed by competing tribes at cultural events, or to honour people at funerals and graduations – weddings, parties, anything. “Man, any excuse,” he explains. “A big part of doing them is to uplift your spirits.”

Photography was a passion, so I ask what he shot. “Just my penis. I sent them to people, but we didn’t have phones, so I would print them out, post them. One of the first dick pics,” he says. Actually, his lens was trained on regular people. He watches us still – in airports, restaurants. “Other times late at night, from a tree. Whatever it takes to get the story. You know that.”

He went to the Wellington state school Onslow College and did plays like Androcles and the Lion, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Crucible. His crew of arty students eventually ended up on stage at Bats Theatre in the city, where they would perform haphazard comedy shows for years.

“Taika was always rebellious and wild in his comedy, which I loved,” says his high school mate Jackie van Beek, who became a longtime collaborator, including working with Waititi on a Tourism New Zealand campaign this year. “I remember he went through a phase of turning up in bars around town wearing wigs, and you’d try and sit down and have a drink with him but he’d be doing some weird character that would invariably turn up in some show down the track.”

He met more like-minded peers at Victoria University, including Jemaine Clement (who’d later become co-creator of Flight of the Conchords). During a 2019 chat with actor Elijah Wood, Waititi describes he and Clement clocking one another from opposite sides of the library one day: a pair of Maoris experiencing hate at first sight, based on a mutual suspicion of cultural appropriation. (Clement was wearing a traditional tapa cloth Samoan shirt, and Waititi was like: “This motherf---er’s not Samoan.” Meanwhile, Waititi was wearing a Rastafarian beanie, and Clement was like, “This motherf---er’s not Jamaican.”)

With Jemaine Clement in 2014. (Getty Images)

But they eventually bonded over Blackadder and Fawlty Towers, and especially Kenny Everett, and did comedy shows together everywhere from Edinburgh to Melbourne. Waititi was almost itinerant, spending months at a time busking, or living in a commune in Berlin. He acted in a few small films, and then – while playing a stripper on a bad TV show – realised he wanted to try life behind the camera. “I became tired of being told what to do and ordered around,” he told Wellington’s Dominion Post in 2004. “I remember sitting around in the green room in my G-string thinking, ‘Why am I doing this? Just helping someone else to realise their dream.’ ”

He did two strong short films, then directed his first feature – Eagle vs Shark (2007) – when he was 32. He brought his mates along (Clement, starring with Waititi’s then-girlfriend Loren Horsley), setting something of a pattern in his career: hiring friends instead of constantly navigating new working relationships. “If you look at things I’m doing,” he tells me, “there’s always a few common denominators.”

Sam Neill says Waititi is the exemplar of a new New Zealand humour. “The basis of it is this: we’re just a little bit crap at things.”

This gang of collaborators shares a common Kiwi vibe, too, which his longtime friend, actor Rhys Darby, once coined “the comedy of the mundane”. Their new TV show, Our Flag Means Death, for example, leans heavily into the mundanity of pirate life – what happens on those long days at sea when the crew aren’t unsheathing swords from scabbards or burying treasure.

Waititi plays pirate captain Blackbeard, centre, in Our Flag Means Death, with Rhys Darby, left, and Rory Kinnear. (Google Images)

Sam Neill, who first met Waititi when starring in Hunt for the Wilderpeople, says Waititi is the exemplar of a new New Zealand humour. “And I think the basis of it is this,” says Neill. “We’re just a little bit crap at things, and that in itself is funny.” After all, Neill asks, what is What We Do in The Shadows (2014) if not a film (then later a TV show) about a bunch of vampires who are pretty crap at being vampires, living in a pretty crappy house, not quite getting busted by crappy local cops? “New Zealand often gets named as the least corrupt country in the world, and I think it’s just that we would be pretty crap at being corrupt,” Neill says. “We don’t have the capacity for it.”

Waititi’s whimsy also spurns the dominant on-screen oeuvre of his homeland – the so-called “cinema of unease” exemplified by the brutality of Once Were Warriors (1994) and the emotional peril of The Piano (1993). Waititi still explores pathos and pain, but through laughter and weirdness. “Taika feels to me like an antidote to that dark aspect, and a gift somehow,” Neill says. “And I’m grateful for that.”

-----------------------------------------------

Something happened to Taika Waititi when he was about 11 – something he doesn’t go into with Good Weekend, but which he considered a betrayal by the adults in his life. He mentioned it only recently – not the moment itself, but the lesson he learnt: “That you cannot and must not rely on grown-ups to help you – you’re basically in the world alone, and you’re gonna die alone, and you’ve just gotta make it all for yourself,” he told Irish podcast host James Brown. “I basically never forgave people in positions of responsibility.”

What does that mean in his work? First, his finest films tend to reflect the clarity of mind possessed by children, and the unseen worlds they create – fantasies conjured up as a way to understand or overcome. (His mum once summed up the main message of Boy: “The unconditional love you get from your children, and how many of us waste that, and don’t know what we’ve got.”)

Second, he’s suited to movie-making – “Russian roulette with art” – because he’s drawn to disruptive force and chaos. And that in turn produces creative defiance: allowing him to reinvigorate the Marvel Universe by making superheroes fallible, or tell a Holocaust story by making fun of Hitler. “Whenever I have to deal with someone who’s a boss, or in charge, I challenge them,” he told Brown, “and I really do take whatever they say with a pinch of salt.”

It’s no surprise then that Waititi was comfortable leaping from independent films to the vast complexity of Hollywood blockbusters. He loves the challenge of coordinating a thousand interlocking parts, requiring an army of experts in vocations as diverse as construction, sound, art, performance and logistics. “I delegate a lot,” he says, “and share the load with a lot of people.”

“This is a cool concept, being able to afford whatever I want, as opposed to sleeping on couches until I was 35.” - Taika Waititi

But the buck stops with him. Time magazine named Waititi one of its Most Influential 100 People of 2022. “You can tell that a film was made by Taika Waititi the same way you can tell a piece was painted by Picasso,” wrote Sacha Baron Cohen. Compassionate but comic. Satirical but watchable. Rockstar but auteur. “Actually, sorry, but this guy’s really starting to piss me off,” Cohen concluded. “Can someone else write this piece?”

Directing Chris Hemsworth in 2017 in Thor: Ragnarok, which grossed more than $1.3 billion at the box office. (Alamy)

I’m curious to know how he stays grounded amid such adulation. Coming into the game late, he says, helped immensely. After all, Waititi was 40 by the time he left New Zealand to do Thor: Ragnarok. “If you let things go to your head, then it means you’ve struggled to find out who you are,” he says. “But I’ve always felt very comfortable with who I am.” Hollywood access and acclaim – and the pay cheques – don’t erase memories of poverty, either. “It’s more like, ‘Oh, this is a cool concept, being able to afford whatever I want, as opposed to sleeping on couches until I was 35.’ ” Small towns and strong tribes keep him in check, too. “You know you can’t piss around and be a fool, because you’re going to embarrass your family,” he says. “Hasn’t stopped me, though.”

Sam Neill says there was never any doubt Waititi would be able to steer a major movie with energy and imagination. “It’s no accident that the whole world wants Taika,” he says. “But his seductiveness comes with its own dangers. You can spread yourself a bit thin. The temptation will be to do more, more, more. That’ll be interesting to watch.”

Indeed, I find myself vicariously stressed out over the list of potential projects in Waititi’s future. A Roald Dahl animated series for Netflix. An Apple TV show based on the 1981 film Time Bandits. A sequel to What We Do In The Shadows. A reboot of Flash Gordon. A gonzo horror comedy, The Auteur, starring Jude Law. Adapting a cult graphic novel, The Incal, as a feature. A streaming series based on the novel Interior Chinatown. A film based on a Kazuo Ishiguro bestseller. Plus bringing to life the wildly popular Akira comic books. Oh, and for good measure, a new instalment of Star Wars, which he’s already warned the world will be … different.

“It’s going to change things,” he told Good Morning America. “It’s going to change what you guys know and expect.”

Did I say I was stressed for Waititi? I meant physically sick.

“Well…” he qualifies, “some of those things I’m just producing, so I come up with an idea or someone comes to me with an idea, and I shape how ‘it’s this kind of show’ and ‘here’s how we can get it made.’ It’s easier for me to have a part in those things and feel like I’ve had a meaningful role in the creative process, but also not having to do what I’ve always done, which is trying to control everything.”

In the 2014 mockumentary horror film What We Do in the Shadows, which he co-directed with Jemaine Clement. (Alamy)

What about moving away from the niche New Zealand settings he represented so well in his early work? How does he stay connected to his roots? “I think you just need to know where you’re from,” he says, “and just don’t forget that.”

They certainly haven’t forgotten him.

Jasmin McSweeney sits in her office at the New Zealand Film Commission in Wellington, surrounded by promotional posters Waititi signed for her two decades ago, when she was tasked with promoting his nascent talent. Now the organisation’s marketing chief, she talks to me after visiting the heart of thriving “Wellywood”, overseeing the traditional karakia prayer on the set of a new movie starring Geoffrey Rush.

Waititi isn’t the first great Kiwi filmmaker – dual Oscar-winner Jane Campion and blockbuster king Peter Jackson come to mind – yet his particular ascendance, she says, has spurred unparalleled enthusiasm. “Taika gave everyone here confidence. He always says, ‘Don’t sit around waiting for people to say, you can do this.’ Just do it, because he just did it. That’s the Taika effect.”

-----------------------------------------------

Taika David Waititi is known for wearing everything from technicolour dreamcoats to pineapple print rompers, and today he’s wearing a roomy teal and white Isabel Marant jumper. The mohair garment has the same wispy frizz as his hair, which curls like a wave of grey steel wool, and connects with a shorn salty beard.

A stylish silver fox, it wouldn’t surprise anyone if he suddenly announced he was launching a fashion label. He’s definitely a commercial animal, to the point of directing television commercials for Coke and Amazon, along with a fabulous 2023 spot for Belvedere vodka starring Daniel Craig. He also joined forces with a beverage company in Finland (where “taika” means “magic”) to release his coffee drinks. Announcing the partnership on social media, he flagged that he would be doing more of this kind of stuff, too (“Soz not soz”).

Waititi has long been sick of reverent portrayals of Indigenous people talking to spirits.

There’s substance behind the swank. Fashion is a creative outlet but he’s also bought sewing machines in the past with the intention of designing and making clothes, and comes from a family of tailors. “I learnt how to sew a button on when I was very young,” he says. “I learnt how to fix holes or patches in your clothes, and darn things.”

And while he gallivants around the globe watching Wimbledon or modelling for Hermès at New York Fashion Week, all that glamour belies a depth of purpose, particularly when it comes to Indigenous representation.

There’s a moment in his new movie where a Samoan player realises that their Dutch coach, played by Michael Fassbender, is emotionally struggling, and he offers a lament for white people: “They need us.” I can’t help but think Waititi meant something more by that line – maybe that First Nations people have wisdom to offer if others will just listen?

“Weeelllll, a little bit …” he says – but from his intonation, and what he says next, I’m dead wrong. Waititi has long been sick of reverent portrayals of Indigenous people talking to kehua (spirits), or riding a ghost waka (phantom canoe), or playing a flute on a mountain. “Always the boring characters,” he says. “They’ve got no real contemporary relationship with the world, because they’re always living in the past in their spiritual ways.”

A scene from Next Goal Wins, filmed earlier this year. (Alamy)

He’s part of a vanguard consciously poking fun at those stereotypes. Another is the Navajo writer and director Billy Luther, who met Waititi at Sundance Film Festival back in 2003, along with Reservation Dogs co-creator Sterlin Harjo. “We were this group of outsiders trying to make films, when nobody was really biting,” says Luther. “It was a different time. The really cool thing about it now is we’re all working. We persevered. We didn’t give up. We slept on each other’s couches and hung out. It’s like family.”

Waititi has power now, and is known for using Indigenous interns wherever possible (“because there weren’t those opportunities when I was growing up”), making important introductions, offering feedback on scripts, and lending his name to projects through executive producer credits, too, which he did for Luther’s new feature film, Frybread Face and Me (2023).

He called Luther back from the set of Thor: Love and Thunder (2022) to offer advice on working with child actors – “Don’t box them into the characters you’ve created,” he said, “let them naturally figure it out on their own” – but it’s definitely harder to get Waititi on the phone these days. “He’s a little bitch,” Luther says, laughing. “Nah, there’s nothing like him. He’s a genius. You just knew he was going to be something. I just knew it. He’s my brother.“

I’ve been asked to explicitly avoid political questions in this interview, probably because Waititi tends to back so many causes, from child poverty and teenage suicide to a campaign protesting offshore gas and oil exploration near his tribal lands. But it’s hard to ignore his recent Instagram post, sharing a viral video about the Voice to Parliament referendum starring Indigenous Aussie rapper Adam Briggs. After all, we speak only two days after the proposal is defeated. “Yeah, sad to say but, Australia, you really shat the bed on that one,” Waititi says, pausing. “But go see my movie!”

About that movie – the early reviews aren’t great. IndieWire called it a misfire, too wrapped in its quirks to develop its arcs, with Waititi’s directorial voice drowning out his characters, while The Guardian called it “a shoddily made and strikingly unfunny attempt to tell an interesting story in an uninteresting way”. I want to know how he moves past that kind of criticism. “For a start, I never read reviews,” he says, concerned only with the opinion of people who paid for admission, never professional appraisals. “It’s not important to me. I know I’m good at what I do.”

Criticism that Indigenous concepts weren’t sufficiently explained in Next Goal Wins gets his back up a little, though. The film’s protagonist, Jaiyah Saelua, the first transgender football player in a FIFA World Cup qualifying match, is fa’afafine – an American Samoan identifier for someone with fluid genders – but there wasn’t much exposition of this concept in the film. “That’s not my job,” Waititi says. “It’s not a movie where I have to explain every facet of Samoan culture to an audience. Our job is to retain our culture, and present a story that’s inherently Polynesian, and if you don’t like it, you can go and watch any number of those other movies out there, 99 per cent of which are terrible.”

*notes: (there is video clip in the article)

Waititi sounds momentarily cranky, but he’s mostly unflappable and hilarious. He’s the kind of guy who prefers “Correctumundo bro!” to “Yes”. When our video connection is too laggy, he plays up to it by periodically pretending to be frozen, sitting perfectly still, mouth open, his big shifting eyeballs the only giveaway.

He’s at his best on set. Saelua sat next to him in Honolulu while filming the joyous soccer sequences. “He’s so chill. He just let the actors do their thing, giving them creative freedom, barely interjecting unless it was something important. His style matches the vibe of the Pacific people. We’re a very funny people. We like to laugh. He just fit perfectly.”

People do seem to love working alongside him, citing his ability to make productions fresh and unpredictable and funny. Chris Hemsworth once said that Waititi’s favourite gag is to “forget” that his microphone is switched on, so he can go on a pantomime rant for all to hear – usually about his disastrous Australian lead actor – only to “remember” that he’s wired and the whole crew is listening.

“I wouldn’t know about that, because I don’t listen to what other people say about anything – I’ve told you this,” Waititi says. “I just try to have fun when there’s time to have fun. And when you do that, and you bring people together, they’re more willing to go the extra mile for you, and they’re more willing to believe in the thing that you’re trying to do.”

Yes, he plays music between takes, and dances out of his director’s chair, but it’s really all about relaxing amid the immense pressure and intense privilege of making movies. “Do you know how hard it is just to get anything financed or green-lit, then getting a crew, getting producers to put all the pieces together, and then making it to set?” Waititi asks. “It’s a real gift, even to be working, and I feel like I have to remind people of that: enjoy this moment.”

Source: The Age

By: Konrad Marshall (December 1, 2023)

#rhys darby #taika waititi #next goal wins #our flag means death #hunt for the wilderpeople #interview

195 notes · View notes

bananamarshmallowz · 5 months

Text

I'm here to talk about Destiel...

The internet is a very funny place.

If you're in need of a good laugh, go to your favorite series, show, films what have you and ask what are you unpopular opinions with _said show_.

I have watched dozens of shows and always think I might be the only one, post that and see what happens.

I am a shipper but I normally don't talk or boast about what/who I ship, it's not relevant and it can be weird. I don't ship actors/real humans, that's crossing lines. Characters however, yes. Anyway, I have to bring up this one. One comment said "Destiel shouldn't have happened." Okay, I get that, people can get weird about it. Then they go on to say how every shipper claws and digs for stuff that isn't there.

And again, I'm not saying some people don't dig but not all gay/LGBTQ+ representation is completely shown in media. Mentioned maybe here and there, sure. But there's endless cis-straight-relationship romance movies, romance themes and what have you. Some series make really bad portrayals and give gay people a bad rap because they're the only representation. And don't get me wrong, sometimes we do dig and claw because we feel what they portray, or at least we think so. But sometimes we don't need to dig.

That same thread added the random siren or even the policeman from yellow fever had more chemistry than Dean and Cas ever have. - Him looking at the soldier's ass in Time After Time while walking in the store. Yes, those were weird scenes, why were they even shown? Great question, I don't know I'm just here. - And as for they have no chemistry... They won best chemistry award for TV... It doesn't get better than that.

This is more of a rant than I want but this is certainly one of my favorite shows. And I feel the need to say what's on my mind because I know I can't afford therapy, so this is the next best thing.

Oh yeah before I start this, I have read numerous comments accusing all the actors of horrendous things... - Firstly, they all have kids, and wives and love their kids so much. I don't think they would do anything to jeopardize that. So stop making up messed up shit. - Secondly, I don't want to believe other people make other people uncomfortable for fun, but some people do. But considering that they acted for more than 8 years together, I'm pretty sure working with people that are cool for that long, they all had a strong bond. And all the times that Jensen looks uncomfortable whenever Misha goes into or talks about Destiel, it's because technically they're not even allowed to say anything about the show regarding shipping characters because anything could've been true, it could've not been. If every actor were able to spoil their movie, we'd be out of movies but we aren't. And Jensen is a rather shy individual, funny enough. At the beginning of Supernatural he was 27, and Jared was 23. When Misha joined when he was 34. They were and still are wholesome and great people. Regardless, All of them would pull pranks and stuff on the show, they're friends, not some messed up whatever someone said, I'm blown away that people would even imply some things. You can look up any video of everyone being close with one another from hugs to dancing, to singing to whatever. So don't say "read the room" when they're just being themselves, I shift a lot when in public, does that mean I'm constantly uncomfortable? No. - THIRDLY, they were all lowkey scared of certain parts of supernatural, in 2017 they did an interview with Entertainment Weekly {this one} and said what the scariest episodes or concepts were at the time for them. Jared's was changelings, shapeshifters, demons possessing people, things that could be real but possibly something posing as someone but something's off. Jensen's was people doing really messed up things and that it was the most realistic thing that could actually happen. Humans being psycho. And vintage dolls, lmao, same. And Misha said that everything could give him nightmares. He's so soft, any of it could give him nightmares. These guys are human. Not some terrible against religion people, they play on a show. Pure human. Just like everyone else.

ANYWAY, I think we all know the infamous eye sex scenes LMAO... if you haven't heard of them... {here's 10 minutes of them staring at each other} and that's not even all the seasons

They always look each other up and down and just stare at each other.

Above, Dean says "Cas, we talked about this. Personal space." and then Cas backs off. He doesn't know why, he just knows it makes Dean uncomfortable, so to make him more comfortable, he takes a few steps back. But Cas isn't aware of how complicated humans are. Personal space are just words, angels shouldn't care what humans have to say. They're so primal and they need more than just basic shelter and foods, they need the whole pyramid of Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. He doesn't understand this until he goes through it himself, but we're getting slightly off topic. Sure, them continuing to stare could be just a funny little thing at the start... no. It still happens up to the last episodes.

This is the musical episode, Fanfiction, Season 10, Episode 5. Destiel, Samstiel and the most dreaded Sam/Dean are mentioned... They're brothers. As someone with siblings... gross.

"You can't spell subtext without S-E-X." Then Jensen gave this look to the camera, I think this is on behalf of many of the people on the show.

Below, they end a scene after talking but it's about 15 seconds of them just staring at each other then it ends. Personally, I'm not a big fan of eye contact, and try to make at least 5 or maybe 2 seconds of contact in between interacting with someone, anything more than 10 is past uncomfortable... I don't stare at anyone this long. Legit the scene is so long lmao

I don't remember the context on this but I just don't like eye contact. Both their eyes are gorgeous but I don't stare like this, especially with any of my siblings. When they have a hard time I hug them if they want a hug, talk to them, but I don't make eye contact like that.

I have never looked at my friends like this, not my best friends, certainly not my siblings. Someone I had a crush on, possibly.

Next, they are going in as Texas Rangers and Dean explains how to get Cas into character. "Yeah. Look, just act like you're from Tombstone, okay?" "The city?" "With Kurt Russell? I made you watch it." "Yeah, yeah. Yeah. The one with the guns and tuberculosis." [in a deep cowboy voice] "I'm your Huckleberry." [gulps] "Yeah, exactly.-"

I don't have anything other than I like that scene and how Cas says, "I'm your Huckleberry" :D

(SPOILERS AHEAD Whoops lol)

When Cas dies Dean tries to pray to God even though he swore off praying to God. One of the lines is "We've lost everything." Mary's gone, correct but everyone else is alive, except Cas. They still had the Bunker, Baby, Jack. Cas and Mary died (she fell through and there was no way to know she was alive.) But considering that Sam is still alive, the guy Dean has fought tooth and nail to save all these years, is standing by him, ready to fight what may come. But Cas is dead... Dean obliterates his hand from punching on a bathroom door. It's frankly the most punches he's made in a single scene I think and even then, God doesn't answer him so he begins to mourn. It creeps in that his friend is gone.

When Cas is being burned, at first it peers to Jack who sees the man who is supposed to be his father, not blood father but someone who promised to look out for him, someone he doesn't even know, he feels the loss but he's just been born and he never really met Cas.

Then we roll to Sam, he's lost a dear friend and is sad. He's wanting to cry and fidget and be sad.

THEN we roll to Dean. His face is drained of all emotion. He has lost his best friend. His dear companion and looks like he lost it all despite his brother being right next to him. He can't even move.

Now I would be sad if one of my brothers died but sadly I don't have that much of a connection with them as Dean and Cas have. And thankfully I haven't yet experienced one of my brothers pass on.

But I have lost a few lovers, and that... That is the face I have felt. When everything else feels irrelevant. You don't care about anything. You can't care about anything. You are numb.

And this all brings us to the finale.

Death is on her way, has them by their hearts, well Dean's in fact. They run/slowly walk over to Basement Storage Room 7B and Cas wards the room, slowing down Death on the other side.

This is the exact moment before he loses Cas for the last time. (I'm copying from the script on the Supernatural wiki, don't hate me, I watched it over and over too, and I've shortened Cas's monologue because I don't want to relive that heartbreak again lmao) But basically Cas realizes this is it, this is the happiest he has been. Everyone was alive and well, he has Dean alone at last. The last exchange they had was this: "You changed me, Dean." "Why does this sound like a goodbye? "Because it is." - "I love you."

"Don't do this, Cas." - "Cas..." "Goodbye, Dean." "What?"

Cas pushes Dean out of the way and gets taken by the Empty.

He has to process all these years of interactions with this awkward little man with sensible shoes in less than five minutes and it all crumbles.

Castiel is gone. And he's not coming back.

Sam keeps trying to call Dean but he's just getting Dean's voicemail and Dean isn't answering. He simply can't.

A few episodes later, Dean fucking dies. Just how he said he would, to a monster, like any other job. It felt rushed and I didn't like it.

But how they ended it could've been so much worse.

Dean makes it to heaven, expecting just memory lane, but Bobby's there and says Jack remade heaven new, everyone's together in heaven where they belong. He offers him a beer and tells him how different heaven is and how it's so much better.

Dean's sold, but it's missing something.

This is directly after Bobby tells Dean that Cas helped Jack rebuild heaven.

After that, he takes a drive as he waits out Sam's life. He meets Sam on the bridge and that's the end.

For years, Dean didn't have an obvious love interest, here and there a fling maybe but nothing romantic. All the soft scenes were pretty much between him and Cas.

Their bond isn't brotherly, it's very best friend-ish but lovers can be friends too.

And that's my review on Destiel and why it's a thing it's 4 am and I haven't slept well the past two days so what to do other than write about destiel

ok bye :]

#supernatural #destiel #dean winchester #sam winchester #castiel #jensen ackles #misha collins #jared padalecki #rant/idk #fuck it #im so tired oml

33 notes · View notes

oh-austin · 2 years

Text

halle bailey fc !

liked by ynfan1 and 14,828 others

deuxmoi BREAKING NEWS: Actress and singer, Y/N L/N, is reported to be portraying Ariel in Disney’s live-action remake of The Little Mermaid and we’re HERE for it!🧜🏽‍♀️❤️

view all comments

ynfan3 GET IT MAMA

user4 🧜🏽‍♀️🧜🏽‍♀️🧜🏽‍♀️🧜🏽‍♀️🧜🏽‍♀️ queen shit!!!!!!!!

user5 this.. isn’t it

ynfan6 umm why?

user7 she doesn’t really look like ariel..

user8 if you had a brain you would realise that ariels ethnicity has NOTHING to do with the original storyline- there isn’t anything wrong with casting a woman of colour as ariel, it doesn’t change anything

ynfan10 LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK

ynfan11 the ‘i don’t see colour people’ have switched up real fast. Y/N will be phenomenal in this film ❤️

user12 sad really that people are so disgusting- Y/N is amazing and deserves this role

ynfan13 she’s gonna be so good I can’t wait 🥹🥹

ynfan14 I feel like a proud mum or smth

user16 she’s actually so stunning wtf

ynfan17 literally the prettiest woman on this planet

ynfan19 so happy Y/N is getting the recognition she deserves in films now, she’s so amazing

liked by austinbutler and 26,827 others

yourinstagram feeling incredibly blessed to be apart of the Disney family, thank you to those of you who have been so welcoming to me ❤️ I hope to make all little princesses around the world proud with this film

view all comments

ynfan21 TELL EM BABY

ynfan23 she’s so perfect it’s unfair

daveeddiggs THE QUEEN OF THE SEA!!! It’s a pleasure to know you

ynfan24 🥹🥹🥹🥹😭

ynfan26 daveed loves her ❤️❤️

ynfan27 Y/N sharing the screen with Melissa McCarthy????? Iconic

ynfan28 I actually can’t wait for them to work together

ynfan31 you’re so special to girls around the world, be proud of yourself Y/N

austinbutler my ariel ❤️ so proud of you

yourinstagram I love you unconditionally

ynfan32 austin and y/n interactions are what I live for

ynfan33 he’s such a supportive boyfriend wtf 🥺

ynfan35 she’s actually going to make such an amazing Ariel wtf!!!

liked by ashleytisdale, annasophiarobb and 47,224 others

austinbutler ❤️

view all comments

austinfan37 austins back on his publicly loving y/n shit

austinfan38 the only time austin is active is when he’s praising y/n and i love it so much

ashleytisdale a force to be reckoned with 😌

yourinstagram I love you so much ash

ynfan40 can just imagine austin constantly taking pics of y/n whenever he can

austinfan41 he so does 😭😭

austinfan43 constantly taking candids of her!! I can see it now

ynfan44 especially on his film cameras, mans has rolls and rolls of film that are just her

austinbutler liked this comment !

annasophiarobb YOURE LITERALLY A REAL LIFE PRINCESS Y/N!! SO GORGEOUS ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

yourinstagram 🥹🥹🥹❤️❤️

yourinstagram my best friend taking pictures of me again

austinbutler forever

austinfan47 actually sleeping on the highway tonight and it’s THEIR FAULT

liked by austinfan50 and 2372 others

austinupdates Austin’s IG stories today as his longtime girlfriend Y/N L/N attended (and won an award at) the Power of Young Hollywood Awards this evening!

view all comments

austinfan51 aus is down so bad for her

austinfan54 he really is 😭😭

ynfan55 she’s so gorgeous

ynfan57 making history for young girls all over the globe 🌎 💙 she deserves this award

austinfan59 austin is obsessed

ynfan60 perfect husband material

ynfan62 waiting for him to propose 💍💍

austinfan64 cannot wait for him to go into promo mode when the little mermaid comes out, he’s gonna go feral for her

ynfan65 Y/N will be the exact same in Oscar’s season

austinfan68 if Austin doesn’t win best actor I feel like Y/N will pull a will smith

ynfan70 oh 100%. she’s Austin’s biggest fan and she knows it. Y/N gonna riot if he doesn’t win

austinfan72 Austin’s gonna have to hold her back as she goes to swing at the academy ☺️☺️

austinfan73 as she should tbh

#ig Halle fc #austin butler #austin butler imagine #austin butler one shot #austin butler x reader #austin butler drabble #austin butler fluff #elvis 2022 #social media au #austin butler fake instagram

238 notes · View notes

brf-rumortrackinganon · 3 months

Text

“The two paths for an Oscar is weird and quirky or historic and biographical."

As someone whose best friend won best Foreign film Oscar 2006 - Totsi, i can tell you that those categories are only true in terms of what gets or is more likely to be nominated rather than what wins.

The best predictor of Oscar win is The Golden Globes. With extremely rare exception, everyone who wins the drama awards at the Golden Globes also wins the Oscar.

Occasionally, they’ll throw in a pity nomination for the winner of the comedy/ music category, but that person rarely wins.

It was harder to predict the year the Globes was cancelled, but then they used DEI biases to pick the Oscar winners. I felt so bad for everyone who was nominated and more pity for the winners because that entire ceremony / awards was to appease DEI. A case of getting nominated and or winning the award because you tick the DEI box.

As for Emma or Lily winning best actress, Lily has the Globe for drama plus she’s a minority so she’ll definitely win. Further, Emma already has an Oscar ( 2017 for La La Land) which is another reason she won’t win this time even though her performance is pure oscar bait. People don’t like to think about the sentimantal/ political reasons people win, but it’s the unconfortable truth baked in. This year, Lily, RDJ and Chris Nolan will win for polittical/ sentimental reasons. RDJ’s win is the long overdue/ overlooked cherry on top of his career revival after early promise followed by spectacular downfall and then rise with the Marvel films. Nolan will win because it is time for him to win as opposed to being his best work. On the sentimental note, this is why Al Pacino and Scorcese finally won their oscars…..a case of long overdue/ overlooked, we better give them the oscar before they die as opposed to being their best work. Lily is going to win for the same reason Hally Berry won. Minority / diversity win which will be trumpted to the roof as if she’s Meryl Streep and then eveerything will go back to what they were doing having ticked a box.

New DEI considerations aside, the process remains the same in 2024 as it was in 2005 when we did the awards circuit to win that 2006 oscar.

Therefore i can confidently predict that best film will be Oppenheimer, director will be Chris Nolan, Greta Gerwig will win for screenplay, best actor will be Cillian Murphy, best actress will be Lily, best support actress will be D'vine Joy Rudolph and best support actor will be RDJ.

*************

We’ll see. There’s always potential for an upset. (I agree with most of your predictions. I’m on the fence about screenplay. I don’t share your confidence that Greta has it in the bag.)

#submission

10 notes · View notes

loveabledirtbag · 7 months

Text

1.08 - Braciole

Uffda, we’ve gotten to the end of season one of the bear! and it’s only now that i realize all the things i wanted to say, and still haven’t as we’ve gotten to the end of the season!

i might have to do a whole season recap and final thoughts post too! AND THEN we get into season two! uffda…i might finish this before season three comes

but anyway, let’s get into it…

i love the surrealist intro we get. it’s just a little different than most of what we’ve seen up to this point. there is a sort of lucid, dreamlike air over the whole season, but getting this really intense, disturbing cooking show nightmare scenario followed by bears in the background is just….it hits different.

but the slow descent into horror, and bleeding into his panic attack as carmy has flashbacks to his behavior in the previous episode. it’s just so well done.

the fact that he’s wearing a different color shirt when not at the restaurant, or having come from the restaurant or going to the restaurant. i like that touch. it gives the idea that carmy’s white t-shirts truly are his uniform. and his life is just so engrossed in the beef that he’s almost always on his way to, currently at, or coming home from being there. but we now have confirmation he has a shirt that’s just for him. an at home piece. plus the fact that it is black when compared to his usual white is probably significant too. we’re coming off the fact that carmy just had a major blowup at work, descending into every learned character trait from his traumatic family upbringing and working experience. he’s at his darkest moment: no longer the good knight trying to save a restaurant that means something to a community and help bring the people who work there to their fullest potential. he’s now the villain that yells and is abusive and harms those around him.

the fact that he looks at his cook books to come down is also so telling. thinking of the dishes inside of them, potentially dishes he’s made from reading them. it’s just continuing to show how broken and single minded he’s been his whole life and how harmful being so one-track can be.

hearing mikey, and (maybe? maybe not) carmy speaking as carmy is spiraling and trying to come down from his anxiety attack: hearing “let it rip” which is clearly mikey but also, “i’m gonna burn this fucking place down” which i think might be mikey but could also be carmy? honestly? not sure if anyone has confirmation on it. but with carmy’s themes of fire this season, it might be him. but of course, we also know mikey had his own fire story (which we’ll talk about in season two when we the audience learn mikey also has stories about starting fires…)

it is good, and showing on carmy’s part of how he wants to grow and change for the better, that when he woke up after his bad day and his ongoing panic attack he went to an all family meeting for al-anon. i still think it’s so weird that so many people shit on carmy for being so abusive and toxic (which he is!) but don’t talk about how he’s trying so hard to try and get better.

listen. carmy’s 8 minute long, one-take speech is absolutely, unequivocally one of the greatest things put to film. i don’t even know how to properly talk about it. but it is absolutely at least 50% of the reason why jeremy allan white deserved best actor, and why the bear deserved every award it won (and maybe a few more). it’s stunning. go watch it. now. go. this will still be here when you get back.

i think it’s interesting that carmy talks about mikey’s charisma and how everyone liked him. because we get that sense in the quick flashback we see of mikey. BUT we don’t really see that when we spend more time with mikey in season two for the “Fishes” episode. i’m curious if we’ll see a sort of marrying of the two mikey’s as the show goes on. how did the charismatic “everybody’s best friend” mikey turn into the depressive, animalistic, explosive mikey, before finally dying by suicide before season one begins. (it’s one of my notes, that maybe i’ll talk about in a later post)

but we get another little tidbit in carmy’s psychology that shows how he likes torturing himself. there’s been a few examples throughout the season that carmy actually likes all the shit he goes through. i know i mentioned them in the concurring episodes, but the one that comes to mind is when he’s talking to nat on the phone and she asks him about working at the restaurant in new york and he talks about throwing up before work every day, and when she sympathizes with him he says “i kinda dug it”, and then when he notices her reaction to him saying that he says “oh, no, no it was horrible.”. but in his monologue he talks about having oily and dry skin, having greasy hair, and getting knife cuts and garlic and onions in the cuts, and callouses and his stomach was fucked and it was….everything. like there’s something that carmy feels when he’s going through shit; a twisted love for going through pain. i think it’s a really nuanced, balanced, and deep character trait that they thread throughout the show. where you hear him say something once and you might not pay close attention to it, or maybe you’re like “oh, yeah. i kind of get that feeling. like when you work really hard and accomplish a goal.” but when you stack all of the times he makes a comment like that together you go, “ohhhhh….thats not good.”

which, i think that’s what happened with mikey. mikey was charming and charismatic and fun! but the people who were closest to him knew that he had a drug problem, and had moments of dark depressive episodes. and maybe they were far and few enough between that no one thought anything of it. and then one day mikey was dead. i think that’s one of the hardest things to realize and understand and then see with the people around you. sometimes you gotta stack up comments on top of each other with context and go, “oh. hey. everything okay?”

what follows after the 8 minute monologue masterpiece (that i will forever be jealous i can’t use in my high school theater class, but whatever i’m over it. i’m 30. i’m not THAT mad about it) is honestly an almost unsettling chill episode. and that might sound wrong or stupid to those who’ve seen it, knowing what is coming. but the way it’s filmed, the way it’s presented on screen, the way the rest of the episode plays out is this really calm, muted, sorta quiet, oppressive episode.

it sorta feels like when you have a manic episode and then what follows immediately after is a depressive episode. the anxiety hangover. we had this loud, fast, angry, explosive previous episode and what follows is the exhaustion that comes afterwards.

“she just missed the asshole. like, what happens if you get stabbed in the asshole? you can’t sew an asshole.” “i’ve seen assholes.” GOD. ebra is a comedic genius of a character and there’s never enough of him in each episode.

telling everyone that dinner service is canceled because you’re hosting a bachelor party THE MORNING of the event is a douche move. and i FULLY understand that this is TV logic of moving plot succinctly, but in real life that’s about as big a dick move as anything carmy does the whole season. which might sound severe, but private events are the FUCKING WORST. because the tips for the FOH (front of house) go out the door, and you don’t get to go in a groove of people come in and out, which means your BOH (back of house) becomes bouncers and waiters and caretakers to the guests. which they all hate doing. plus, the large amount of money you get upfront when the group rents out the place is immediately stretched thinner as the night wares on and the people stop ordering more food, but you’re also missing out on potential rushes and money. PLUS, they’re not even making money from the event, because they’re paying off a debt to cicero, so they’re losing out on all that money, AND they’re not making anything from a down payment. i wish they had thrown a line into the show of like carmy saying he just found out the news that morning too, just so the hate i feel doesn’t burn towards carmy. but i know -i know- that this is just TV stuff to make everything move along faster so we can move past it to the main plot of the show.

i do enjoy the dinner that syd and marcus have. it’s very pleasant. i also get romantic vibes here (which we’ll keep talking about in season two), and it makes things complicated because i don’t think i’m reading too deeply into things? there are ways that editors and directors craft scenes so that when you’re watching at home you pick up a vibe and like….i pick that vibe up….? is it just me? (i mean, it’s clearly not just me, because of season two. but again….more on that later)

for the entire essay i wrote on the last episode, syd and marcus complaining about carmy really rubs me the wrong way. because a lot of the stress that came about that day was their fault, and then made worse by their walking out. NOW, if i were syd or marcus would i be doing the EXACT SAME THING with my coworker? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY! and yes, carmy does deserve some hate for how he reacted when it all went shit. but like…i still think they’re conversation shows they feel absolutely no guilt or shame for their own actions and failings that caused a lot of problems last episode, and that has always rubbed me the wrong way. like…shit on carmy. he was an asshole, he deserves to be shit on. BUT LIKE…not even a line of like “i wish i had double checked the to-go orders and made sure it was turned off for preorders.” “i wish i didn’t become obsessed with donuts so much that i stopped doing my job for weeks straight. and then when shit hit the fan, i continued to make donuts as if nothing else was going on.”

“my moms like that…” i think this is the first reference to sydney’s mom. with everything we learn in season two, i wonder if this is sydney lying, or sydney remembering and using the present tense to pretend her is still alive? (sorry for spoilers for season two).

ok. so, the dish sydney makes. LOOKS INCREDIBLE. but we get a shot of the dish, and it’s just sitting in oil. just like a puddle or a small soup of oil. not the end of the world, not wrong or bad in and of itself. BUT THEN SHE DRIZZLES MORE ON? like, syd! that’s so much fucking oil! now, once again, i know that they have a real life, talented, hardcore chef who made sure everything was as perfect and realistic as possible. which means that this HAS TO be some sort of TV thing. like, they want to keep sydney moving as she talks to keep the scene dynamic, so they have her drizzle something before she serves and because of the specific dish she’s making the only thing she could drizzle without ruining the dish is more oil. but like….idk, maybe choose a different dish then? it has bugged me since the first time i watched this show and it’ll never not bug me. because it’s not only wasteful, and gonna make this dish just so incredibly oily, but like….you don’t garnish a dish with something you already added as the base of the dish. you don’t make an ice cream sundae and then on top drizzle MORE vanilla ice cream! it’s just weird.

tina checking in with carmy is so sweet. it’s speaks so much to how good the show is that my LEAST favorite character could become one of my favorites in like the course of two episodes. love mama bear tina.

the calm, familial love between richie and carmy that has slowly but surely been prodding itself out more and more each episode is just so beautifully done.

listen, you might say to yourself that violence is never the answer, but tiny pipsqueak carmy jumping into every fight possible to stop people from fighting is the most noble thing ever. like…what hope does he ever have of stopping these tall midwesterners from fighting? he just continually gets the shit kicked out of him for trying to stop people fighting and i kinda love that about him. and richie coming in to the rescue both times is also a vibe. love that about richie, stepping in as a protective older brother.

…of course this time richie almost kills a a guy and gets arrested so. not the best.

if you had put “richie gets arrested for assault, with possible charge of manslaughter depending on if the customer he punched to break up a fight” on your bingo card, good for you! i didn’t see that coming.

that richie “bad news” uses his one phone call to call his ex wife, and then realizing that he always calls with bad news decides instead to NOT tell her that he’s in prison, but instead apologizes for the argument he got in with her dad at some point in their relationship…wow. it breaks your heart all over again. richie is just such a broken, sad guy.

that carmy is waiting for richie, asleep in the foyer is just…precious. it’s family. that’s family. that carmy used the shop’s two week parachute money to bail richie out, meaning that financially the beef has gone right back to where it started in episode one is…well, again. it’s family. a shop, when doing it right, ACTUALLY cares about its employees. because carmy feels like the person who would have done that for anyone in the beef, not just richie. i know owners and managers saying “we’re family here” has turned into a red flag that is code for “we don’t pay you enough, we take advantage of you, and we emotionally manipulate you”. but what family ACTUALLY DOES is when battling the evils of capitalism, and struggling to get by, you use what little you had saved up to help those who make it possible to do what you do. i wish more places actually did things like this. paid for bail, or medical procedures. but the only businesses i’ve heard that have done this are small ma and pa, independently owned restaurants. and it’s probably because you work so close to these people all day every day that they really do become your family.

the fact that we then symbolically and visually go back to the beginning of the show: they’re getting ball breaker ready for a tournament, they have no money, carmy’s on the floor hand scrubbing stains again, lu fucks up their meat order. the same song from the first episode plays. we zoom in on the ever present and oppressive clock.

ok. so marcus returns, and carmy literally goes out of his way to say he’s so sorry and he’s glad he’s back. carmy proves that once again, he is trying to be better, he’s trying to rise above his family, above his old bosses and be the bigger and better person and apologize for his mistakes and show that he does care about marcus….but marcus doesn’t say anything back. AGAIN, i know that carmy’s blowup is visually, and thematically way bigger and more prominent. but marcus couldn’t have said like, “sorry that i took advantage of your trust and your belief in me. that while you were working 24/7 to try and make sure this place didn’t go under you still allowed me to purchase and explore and do whatever i wanted with my workday, and all i had to do in return was make the cakes that were my idea in the first places, which i then repeatedly didn’t do. i’m sorry about that.” like…it blows my mind that the writing team, director, producer, and everyone else didn’t have a moment where they were like “should marcus apologize for what he did at all? like, he hurt the store which was already hurting? he put the shop at more risk of closing because of his actions. should he apologize for that?”

the beautiful conclusion to the braised short rib dish. in an earlier post i talked about how there’s an ongoing subtle storyline with it that is deeper than carmy just being an asshole and saying it wasn’t ready without giving pointers to make it better. and we see as he covers sydney’s shift he finds her little black notebook with the recipe and that’s when he learns what’s wrong with the dish: that it needs acid. he didn’t know before. when sydney had him try it, he knew it was missing something but he wasn’t sure what. it might have been his own pride: he didn’t want to admit syd that he didn’t know what was missing. and he didn’t want to ask for her recipe to find out, because he’s supposed to be the best. he should know every ingredient that’s in the dish, and he should know what’s missing and what needs to be added. and he didn’t. so he couldn’t ask syd for her recipe, he couldn’t tell her he didn’t know what it needed. and maybe, there was a part of him that didn’t want her dish to succeed, because he saw her as the competition, like he admitted in his monologue earlier in this episode. but it comes from such a place of trauma, and pain, and self-hatred. it’s so well done and so sad.

what i think is truly fascinating is that we get this scene where we see the staff deep cleaning everything. soap and water. the whole kitchen looks amazing. we cut to the lowboys, we cut to the floor, we cut to the shelves with all the plates. spotless. and then in just a few scenes carmy is looking around and it’s wrecked. it’s filthy. and i wonder….is it actually wrecked, or is it in carmy’s own perception of the place. because one interpretation could be that; well, you’re a restaurant. you’re gonna clean, it’s gonna get dirty, you’re gonna clean, it’s gonna get dirty. and carmy is just sick of the repetition. that he’s getting worn out from it all. the other is that he’s in such a hole in his own head that he thinks the place looks like a wreck when in actuality it’s still cleaner and nicer than it was when he started working there.

i personally like the second option. for one, it mirrors the truth of the shop. we get a lot of repeated themes and moments from the first episode. carmy is probably feeling like he’s right back to where he started. he just spent 7 episodes “cleaning up the place”, and now it’s “dirty again”. but in actuality, he has a staff that has fully embraced his system over mikey’s, he has an updated menu that is making strides in the community. i mean, in seven episodes he was able to get ahead of the tidal wave of debt and bills to create a two week parachute while trying to fight for everyone’s respect and loyalty in the shop. now he has their respect, so he should make that parachute back up even faster. but he’s so emotionally and mentally drained and damaged that he can’t see that progress, he can’t see how much “cleaner” the shop is. he just sees the filth.

this is backed up, in my mind, that while carmy is having his anxiety and depressive episode, stuck in this cycle of dread, we get clips of everyone else crushing their jobs. they’re refilling condiment cups, they’re prepping eggs for cake, they’re dicing and cooking onions, chopping into a chicken. they look like a well-oiled machine. and then we cut to looking at carmy from the side, and the kitchen behind him looks clean. white. crisp. it makes me think that all the grime and disgusting stuff we saw was only in his head

HOWEVER; we also see an olive oil squeeze bottle on its side over the stove dripping into it, and then in the next scene when carmy turns the stove on it instantly bursts into flames. so. maybe it’s not fully in his head? idk, i go back and forth on this one.

i wish they could make a realistic cgi fire. i’m not sure if it’s because fire already kinda looks fake, so to then make fake fire becomes impossible to make look real? or if they simply didn’t have the budget to make it look real. but the two times there’s been fire in this show it has looked so fake.

i think the theme of fire that we see from carmy is interesting. carmy talked about how the day after he won a james beard award he started a fire and watched it burn for a moment. we get that quick snippet in the very beginning of this episode “shoulda let it fucking burn down” which i dont know if it was mikey or carmy saying that. carmy almost set his own apartment on fire while cooking. there’s a lot about fire in this season. (and a lot about trying to put the fire out next season…but more on that later…)

but i love that when everyone comes to put out the fire (which….thats symbolic, right? for community? carmy needed help, he started a fire, and they came around him and put his fire out), richie comes up to carmy and instead of being angry, or sarcastic, or mean, just wants to know if carmy is ok. because he understands now; richie has been going through a lot because of mikey, so obviously so is carmy. he’s thinking about others now for the first time.

and that’s when richie gives carmy the letter from mikey that he found in episode two. because richie finally realized that he’s not okay. and that because richie knows that he’s not okay, he realizes carmy is not okay. and that instead of the two of them not addressing why they’re not okay, it’s time to heal and move forward. so he gives carmy the letter. and i love that there’s a moment where carmy is a little mad; richie knew about a letter that mikey made out to carmy. but richie admits the truth: he didn’t want to give it to carmy because it meant that mikey was really gone. and carmy’s not mad anymore, because he understands. it’s a shared moment of intimacy that i just love how subtle and slow and quiet and understated it is. the care between carmy and richie in this moment, and sorta in the episode overall is just kinda beautiful. this episode does such a good job of not being in your face like the rest of the season is, even while arguably more intense stuff happens this episode than in any of the previous ones.

call it friendship, call it a budding romance, call it emotional dependency that is unhealthy (i’ve seen cases for all three), but i think it means something that carmy has this letter from mikey, and instead of reading it first he instead texts syd. this sort of thing will happen again in season two, and we’ll talk about it. but, i think it means something that before he can address and face mikey’s last words to him, he needs to make sure he doesn’t follow in mikey’s footsteps, he needs to make sure that he doesn’t leave anyone hanging with unneeded or unwanted anger without resolution. and top of his list is syd.

also, not important. but the outfit that syd is wearing this scene, while COOKING and making sauces that is splatterig, IS SO COOL. i don’t often notice outfits, unless there’s something deeper in the outfits that speaks to characters (carmy’s white shirt uniform, richie’s sweat pants and beef t-shirts), but syd’s shirt is fucking fire

“i love you dude. let it rip” is so….so. like it speaks volumes and it’s so mikey and its just a hit to the heart. but at the same time, that’s all he said. no long heartfelt goodbye. just i love you. let it rip. and family spaghetti recipe on the back. the same one carmy axed from the menu in episode one. it’s really nice touch that carmy decides to honor his brother, finally coming to terms with his death, by making the dish for family dinner. plus we learn why there’s so many smaller cans of tomato’s when bigger ones are cheaper per ounce! mikey thought they tasted better…

also. we get a quick cut of marcus making the cake again. and the first time we see him drizzle the chocolate on it looks SO DRY, but this time it actually looks moist and tasty!

i love that once again there’s like a…undercurrent of charge between fak and richie. fak is talking all low and quiet about how cool it was that richie got stabbed and walked it off, and i can’t help but think….do these two secretly love each other?! wouldn’t be surprised.

there’s $300,000 hidden in these cans of tomatoes! which, when i learned that, my very first thought was “didn’t carmy toss a can in episode one??? how much money was in that can! is there like 100 cans? that’s like $3,000! FUCK! even if there’s like 300 cans, that’s still $1,000? not great!

i think it’s pretty fair and fitting to say that in a capitalist society, all of the problems we just went through over the course of 8 episodes magically disappears because of money. like, these working class people are suddenly without a problem because $300,000 fell into their lap.

but that also brings me to one of my only guilts for this season. the deus ex machina of: we go through 8 episodes of problems and trying to climb out of this hole by the skin of our teeth, and ope! instead of accomplishing it ourselves we just found $300k. and everything is (sorta) wrapped up nicely. and yes, the way it all sorta gets revealed is done about as well as could be. the threat of making the spaghetti, carmy wondering about why they get the smaller cans, going over the books and seeing this weird amount of payments to KBL electric for the amount cicero gave to mikey. it all was leading here: finding the money. and it’s not superb genius twist, i assumed something was up and then was like “oh! the money!” before the money was revealed. but it also doesn’t need to be a super plot twisty thing. the bear isn’t going for that. so they do a great job with the plot point, it’s just not my favorite plot point.

but i do love that sydney comes back; for what, we’re not fully sure. to ask for her old job back? maybe. to pick up her last check and be done? possibly. but she stumbles upon this group of rough around the edges lovable dirtbags surrounded by tomato sauce and money and richie (and it’s perfect that it’s richie) is like, “hey! you’re part of this family! get a can opener and let’s boogie!”

i also loved that carmy and syd just look at each other and they without even questioning it start designing the new restaurant. but i have to believe that i wasn’t the only one that when syd asks, “okay, what do we call it?” and the camera holds for just a second too long on carmy’s face, i immediately yelled “OH SHIT! THE BEAR!”

and then it ends perfectly. the whole family eating pasta and laughing because they’re finally gonna be ok. the beef is gonna close, the bear is gonna open, and it’s gonna be amazing.

i also love the meaningful shot of carmy walking out of the kitchen and for the first time we see him pull the towels off his apron, and take his apron off. he’s not cooking. and everyone is smiling, and everyone is happy.

and then we get this shot, and it means something. because carmy is wearing a black shirt again, and he looks up just past the camera and smiles. and then we cut to mikey, who turns to look just past the camera and we realize that mikey and carmy are looking at each other smiling.

and then it ends. *chefs kiss*

i do……..think it’s a little glossed over that mikey knew about carmy’s dream of opening a shop together, loved that idea and would talk to him about it. and then realized that the beef was poison, so he hurt his relationship with carmy to keep carmy away, which sent carmy onto a path of fine dining. mikey saw that, knew that carmy could fix things, so he borrowed $300k from cicero, then took his own life and gave carmy the restaurant so that carmy would then uncover his plot and be able to start the restaurant of his dreams. i understand mental health plays a lot into this, but uffda. mikey. there are other ways to do this…other ways that are also just a smidge less convoluted.

but that’s the episode! and not just the episode, but the season! uffda. i honestly think it’s just about as perfect as perfect could be! yes, there are a few gripes, but man those gripes aren’t enough to even come close to stopping this from being my favorite show ever and one of the best shows ever made. i love it. i love it so much.

season two awaits! someday…

#the bear #the bear fx #the bear hulu #carmy berzatto #carmen berzatto #the bear tv #blog #live blogging #live blog #live blog tag #essay #syd adamu #sydney the bear #sydney adamu #the bear richie #richie the bear #richie jerimovich #the bear season one

18 notes · View notes

denimbex1986 · 1 month

Text

'...This weekend a good friend invited me to a filmed play of what was billed as a radical new version of Anton Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya.

And playing ALL EIGHT PARTS in this retelling of a 125-plus-year-old Chekhov story was none other than the actor Andrew Scott.

Netflix’s Ripley.

The tortured gay heartthrob from last year’s All Of Us Strangers.

The hot priest from Fleabag.

Moriarity from the long-running BBC series Sherlock.

Among others.

You watch this guy nimbly jumping back and forth from one character to another, sometimes in mere seconds and other times in minutes, or monologues, as he quips, cajoles, argues, eats and occasionally even, with the use of his hands, shoulder, neck and breath, simultaneously portray two different male and female characters making love to each other, and all you can think about initially is….

How?????

How is this possible? How is he able to do this?

And then… who imagined it?

Well, it was adapted last year by the playwright Simon Stephens, who a decade ago theatrically shed light on and likely helped change the way we thought about autism in the groundbreaking play The Curious Incident of the Dog In The Night-Time (Note: Adapted from the novel by Mark Haddon, it’s won most major playwriting awards).

And he is billed as co-creating it with both Scott and Sam Yates, a 40ish British stage and sometimes television and film director known for his unusual approach to both new and classical material.

Okay.

But then you ask yourself…

Why????? Why do this?

Why do we need this? Why do it at all?

Well, because someone, or a handful of ones, thought of it and needed to think of it. Something about the world they lived in, or events they were personally experiencing, prompted them to think of it. And then move forward with recreating something (and a bunch of fictional someones) from the past that would allow them to understand their present in a different way.

It’s not as if before seeing this filmed version of a play done last year at the National Theatre I was excited about seeing Uncle Vanya done as a one-man show.

Or frankly, any production of Uncle Vanya at all. Nor, I venture to say, is the average person.

But watching Mr. Scott (Note: I so want to call him Andrew, or even Andy)… okay Andrew… throw himself so fully into instantly becoming so many people – with no wigs, no costumes, only a trajectory of mangled feelings, conflicts and eventually emotional outcomes, denials and realizations – well, it was about as contemporary as it gets for me.

It seemed that this film, of this play, had nothing at all to do with Uncle Vanya, or even the playwright himself.

What it addressed were the myriad of emotions, sometimes life and death ones, we are ALL trying to manage as best we can these days. Only to be shown there is no managing.

There is only being truthful about how and what we feel, taking the actions we believe fitting and holding out some hope for a better future when they don’t work out.

And, well, to keep trying.

It might sound a bit trite, but that’s what this new version of Vanya, the one I didn’t think I needed but some other people imagined I might need, did for me.

It made me realize once again that navigating what we call the politics of today is not much different for our generation than it ever was.

And that, lucky for us, back then Chekhov was quite an imaginative fellow himself.'

#Uncle Vanya #Vanya #National Theatre Live #Fleabag #Andrew Scott #Simon Stephens #Sam Yates #Netflix #Ripley #All of Us Strangers #Moriarty #Sherlock #Anton Chekhov

2 notes · View notes

2000sandtoday · 1 year

Text

The Oscars Problem by Cambria Covell

I think, for people that casually watch the Oscars, the ones that are just there to see the fancy clothes or their favorite on screen, there's a funny notion about what the Academy Awards actually are.

People think it's like the People's choice awards where you are voting for YOUR FAVORITE film or YOUR FAVORITE ACTOR. And that's why more often then not people come away from watching the Oscars feeling disappointed.

Especially if the actors are from films people haven't seen. Which is sometimes the case as it was this year I feel.

The Oscars is by no means a show of favoritism although sometimes it does feel like it. The Oscars are an industry award show. It's a way for directors and movie studios to award those they feel are the best examples of the craft of filmmaking. And it's always been this way. It was never meant to be the powerhouse of film study and critique that it became.

Essentially, now, the Oscars is politics. The politics of cinema. Sometimes films have to be nominated because a studio has that much power. See every Disney animated film ever being nominated and usually winning. Sometimes films have to be nominated because the Oscars need seats filled. Or someone to get people to watch.

Ultimately, there are expectations from an Academy Award Best Picture. Or at least that's what the Academy believes. That's why you get a film like All Quiet on The Western Front winning best picture.

That isn't to say that it shouldn't have won. A film that critiques the atrocities of war isn't one you should be pissed about winning (rather, Top Gun: Maverick being nominated let alone winning for something like sound when Elvis was right there and the Top Gun is actively used as a military recruitment vehicle, that should be the one people are mad about but I digress).

If I'd actually known of the films existence prior to the Oscars, which I didn't, I probably would have predicted that as the winner to be completely honest. Just based on the content of the film. War pictures usually win.

The Academy likes films about war. They make a statement without being overtly political other then usually war is bad and they're usually historical which means they are always serious. They're safe. And they fit what the Academy and the audience expects of an Academy Award movie. Rather than something like Till being nominated which voters would be hesitant to nominate because of the complicated subject matter.

The trouble is studios simply don't make films that fit the Academy Award ideal anymore. Which is why, whereas in years past a sci-fi film wouldn't have been considered, Everything Everywhere All At Once, shook so many people including the Academy. Because it was ACTUAL filmmaking.

Not Sequel Bait. Not Franchise Bullshit. It was one of the few movies nominated this year that was actually A FILM. So if The Academy wants to have more variety at the Oscars of films to choose from they need to encourage the studios to MAKE FUCKING FILMS.

Yes. I swore. No, I'm not sorry about it. But the thing is that a lot of the bullshit practices that have been put in place surrounding the current state of cinema are to the detriment of people that actually work in the industry.

CGI filled blockbusters are easier to invest in for studios because they are sure money makers. If it doesn't make money at the box office, they can make money off of merchandise. And, as I will keep saying, it means they don't have to deal with unions. Which is why the films submitted to the Oscars with film in its current state are going to continue to be mediocre at best unless Hollywood remembers what its good at.

People making things. PEOPLE being the key word here. Invest in your filmmakers. Invest in your screenwriters. Invest in your talent. Invest in your costume designers. Invest in your cinematographers. The film industry is a trade. Teach it so that you can benefit from it.

Start programs that teach people the trades that you are so busy gatekeeping so that people don't have to pay an arm and a leg to get a film education. And maybe if you remember that cinema is about people, and not profit, you won't have to sink million dollar franchises.

Believe in the craft of film, take it seriously, create things that entertain and matter, and people will come back to the movies. I think Elvis proves that even if it didn't win anything. Some people came for the story, others like myself, went for the cinematic experience because I knew the work Baz Lurhmann and his team put into their films and I wanted to see that.

It's the same with Everything Everywhere All At Once. And what Everything Everywhere All At Once and Elvis prove is that people are still interested in films and the process of making films and will show up to the movies just to see that. And I think that's why everyone was invested in them winning.

So, perhaps studios will take note. Either that or the Academy better prepared to change requirements for the award or how the award is voted on.

#the oscars #academy awards #95th annual academy awards #film #movies

4 notes · View notes

alwaysahiccupandastrid · 1 year

Note

pls share your oscars takes

… oh boy.

To be honest, most of my takes/opinions on this years awards can be boiled down to the fact that I believe the Academy gave the awards not to the best performances in each category but rather as a reward for legacy/to fit a narrative.

I’m going to get the take that’s most likely to bring me hate out there first: Best Actor. I want to just make it clear that I love Brendan Fraser and I’m so happy for him because what happened to him was awful. But I don’t think he was the best actor in that category, I don’t think The Whale was the film he should have won an award for, and I do believe he won the award not for what I’m certain was a good performance but because it fit the narrative of his comeback and the Academy knew people were wanting him to win for that reason alone.

Personally, and here is my controversial take, I do think Austin Butler should have won - and I’m not some in love fangirl of either him or Elvis, that’s just how I feel. If you watch clips of the real Elvis performing alongside Austin’s performance… it’s actually scary how accurate his movements/mannerisms are, down to the second. Yeah yeah, the voice and the fact he’s still doing it is funny, but I truly do think he was the standout of the film and the main reason it worked - honestly I’m a huge Baz Luhrmann fan but this film hinged on whoever was playing Elvis Presley, and if the actor playing Elvis was wrong then the film would have never worked.

The other acting Oscar I have a take on is the supporting actress one… listen, I adore Jamie Lee Curtis. She’s an icon, a legend, a Queen. But I do not think she was the best nominee in that category, and it felt more like she was being awarded just because of her history as an actress than for her performance she was nominated for. I haven’t seen the film (EEAAT?) but from what I’ve heard she wasn’t even the best nominee from that film in that category. I’m being serious when I say I rooted for Angela Bassett - people seem to scoff and ignore performances from superhero movies but her performance was astounding, I remember seeing that scene in the cinema from Wakanda Forever and everyone being dead silent, the awe in the cinema screening.

So, to sum the above up: I do think the Academy gives some awards based not who was the best in the category but on fitting a certain narrative or even to prove a point.

I think the Oscars used to actually mean something, but nowadays... to me, it just seems like an outdated award show that for some reason is viewed as above and beyond all the other institutions that give out awards, and often times it feels like they don't actually consider most films apart from biographical ones, ones that are clearly Oscar bait (like The Whale is), and dramas.

For example, let’s be honest, with the rare few exceptions, the Academy doesn’t take fantasy/sci fi/horror seriously at all, especially for the acting categories. Even the Lord of the Rings series, which was very awarded, suffered somewhat; the final LOTR film in 2003/2004 won all eleven Oscars it was nominated for (as is right and proper) but there was apparently shock when the nominations were announced and the only categories it wasn’t nominated for were acting ones. Like… seriously? You’re telling me Sean Astin didn’t deserve even just a nomination for the way he cried over Frodo’s lifeless body, for “I can’t carry it but I can carry you!”, for putting on weight even though he’d worked hard to lose it and his co-stars didn’t have to (I’ve heard Dominic had padding to make him look a little more rotund since he used to be so lanky, not sure if that’s true)?

Horror suffers a lot too because people don’t take it seriously and, to my knowledge, rarely gets nominated or recognised; I remember watching Midsommar and wondering why the fuck Florence Pugh didn’t get nominated for that because her performance - the sobbing brokenly at her family’s deaths, the unsettled facial expressions that are tinged with her being taken in by the cult, etc. I’ve seen a number of heartbreaking or genuinely unsettling performances by actors in horror films that are masterfully done and deserve recognition but don’t get it because of the dismissive-ness towards the genre.

I also think actors using motion capture etc are not given the respect they deserve for their performances by the Academy. Like Andy Serkis… that man spent years crawling around the floor in various suits to bring us Gollum and is a master of performing mocap. Any actor who is able to deliver an amazing performance whilst in a motion capture suit deserves a great deal of praise because they’re literally using their imagination for 97% of their performance. For example, the Avatar movies: I’m honestly astounded whenever I see BTS for either film of the actors because they’re literally in studios in silly suits and cameras attached to helmets pretending there’s other blue aliens or various creatures or environments they’re looking at/interacting with. Performances delivered in motion capture are just as valid and deserving as any other performance.

I think the Academy also has an unfortunate habit of choosing Disney to always win Best Animated Feature - which thankfully was not the case this year, I haven’t seen Del Toro’s Pinocchio though I absolutely want to, but frankly 96% of the time when there’s a Disney film nominated they’ll just choose it because it’s Disney (*cough*Toy Story 4*coughcough*).

Anyway, I kind of went off on a tangent there but still.

#this ask is a few weeks old but oh well #i've been busy sorry :(#asks #oscars #oscars 2023

4 notes · View notes

pynkhues · 1 year

Note

What's your opinion on Jamie Lynn Curtis winning the supporting actress. I'm hearing some mixed responses lol. 👀

Controversially, I'm actually not that mad about it, but I think that's probably because it's what I expected?

I think there were a lot more things at play than people are necessarily acknowledging. Like, yeah, there is a systemic racism to rewarding a white woman over an Asian woman who had a much more significant presence in the film, and yeah, it was a career Oscar for Jamie Lee Curtis, which she more or less acknowledged in her speech, but to focus exclusively on that I think also ignores a lot of context, particularly for the Oscars.

In particular, I think Stephanie Hsu's role kiiind of straddles the line for category fraud, because Everything Everywhere All at Once is such a two-hander between her and Michelle Yeoh. I understand why they did submit her as support (especially in terms of noy muddying the waters for Michelle in awards season), but I think in terms of definition, she's a co-lead - she has her own arc, almost as much screentime as Michelle, she's a crucial and active participant in the lead narrative of the film. Everyone arguing that Stephanie was the heart of the film is right! But again, that combined with everything else really makes her more of a lead than a support, which likely lost her votes, especially with Jamie being the clear supporting role in the film.

Also the way The Academy votes when it comes to actors and actresses can vary, but it's also pretty typical. They like young ingenue's for Best Actress and veteran actresses in Best Supporting Actress, and they like the opposite in men - young ingenue's for Best Supporting Actor and veteran actors in Best Actor. I have a lot of theories about why this is, but that's neither here nor there for this post, haha, but basically Michelle Yeoh's (extremely deserving!!) win is more of a surprise to me than Jamie's. If Blonde was a better movie (not even less controversial! Just better!), I'm sure Ana de Armas would've been much more of a threat than she ended up being.

Jamie Lee Curtis is, really, a pretty typical Best Supporting Actress winner (check the list of winners for the last 15 years in particular for context). She also really campaigned this year, and had a lot of genuine support from peers who wanted to see her take one home. She has the narrative that The Academy loves, as did Ke, Michelle and Brendan Fraser.

So yeah! Did Stephanie deserve it? Absolutely, but Best Supporting Actress was also stacked this year (genuinely the first year in a long time where I felt everyone deserved to be there), but Jamie also was great in the role and she has had a brilliant career which has been snubbed because she mostly makes genre movies, and so I'm not bummed she won.

Now, if she was the only cast member to have taken home an Oscar, I would've been furious, but the cast was really acknowledged yesterday, and that teak now in turn has a lot to celebrate.

#for what it's worth my vote would've been split between stephanie and kerry condon for banshees #hong was great in the whale but the whale was egregious as a movie and i can't go there haha #angela bassett was wonderful in wakanda forever too but i'm marveled out these days #she deserves her career oscar AND new roles that'll rightfully get her one on that film's merit too #oscars 2023 #welcome to my ama

3 notes · View notes

joe-moi · 4 months

Note

https://www.tumblr.com/joe-moi/741689457632313344/httpswwwtumblrcomjoe-moi741687416339972096p?source=share

can we stop with this narrative, please? just because jq is cast in "blockbusters" doesn't mean all he cares about is money. if you know a little about the AQP franchise, you know that it features INCREDIBLE actors (Emily Blunt, John Krasinski and Cillian Murphy) who still consider them today as some of the best films of their career. it's considered one of the best franchises in the horror genre, it has won a lot of awards and just the reactions to today's trailer give you an idea of how much attached people are to this movies.

all this to say that if you think that a low budget independent film = an excellent film, you are letting yourself be blinded by clichés. the two films that JK will appear this year are "small movies" (I'm talking about budget here) and look pretty bad, let's be honest for a second. if you think that he cares more about the quality of a project than JQ, I guess these two films don't make good arguments for this analysis then. I mean, if you really want to compare two things that have nothing to do with each other, do it with the AQP trailer and the Marmalade trailer and try to be objective for just a moment. just one.

I don't want to start a competition, for me they are two good actors who will simply shine in different registers (I agree that JK has more chances of flourishing on TV and JQ on cinema) just stop wanting to oppose them on everything. their choices are polar opposites of each other and I don't see why that would be a bad thing. I support them both and you should too.

I think marmalade looks good

#anonymous asks #🛼answers

1 note · View note

introparadoxoutro · 4 months

Text

I don't want to watch the Oscars

anymore... Why does Hollywood suck now? Why?

Every year I watch the Oscars. I still remember being like 9, and watching Julia Roberts win for Erin Brokovich, and i still remember that smile, oh and that dress #iconic.

I was quite mystified last year when Charlbi Dean Kriek and Paul Sorvino were both omitted from the memoriam segment. That was was a crime.

Then this year, wtf on the fucking nominations?!? I thought the Barbie movie was OKaY, but not like award worthy...not by a long shot. It only needs one award for set design and that is it. Both of the times I watched the Barbie Movie, I couldn't get over how bad Ryan Gosling was in that movie, like.....ugh..... my mind ... just wanted to erase him from the film. I felt he was completely miscast as Ken.

(Make Drive 2 Ryan)

Charles Melton, or Dominic Sessa should've been nominated for best supporting actor instead of Ryaaan Gooosling, and that is a fact. Both of those young actors gave absolutely stellar performances and they deserved the recognition. HOLLYWOOD hasn't gotten it right at the oscars since Parasite won best picture and the last thing anyone wants to see is Jamie Lee Curtis congratulating herself.

My biggest gripe with the Oscars, is the 9 film nomination category. Just stop it. That category only needs 5 best film nominations, at most. Make it an actual race, so it feels like any of the 5 best films can win. So much better back in the day

I just dont feel like watching the oscars this year, and perhaps the one next year, for various reasons, mentioned above. Either, recognize the best actors, directors, and the best films, or just cancel the oscars altogether. Like I just can't get over Barbie (the movie) being nominated for best picture, as the storyline was just well [meh]. The plot was a circle going nowhere. Allan and weird Barbie get my nominations, if anything, they at least made me laugh.

Shoutout though to Annette Benning, and Lily GladStone though, as well as Robert Downey G. Of course there are the finest who do get recognition, but not all of the finest, not even close. It seems every year the Oscar snub list keeps growing and growing.

Many of the snubs don't even make sense at this point and hollywood wonders why their numbers are down, when frankly there is plenty of good material out there to still churn out good content in the span of a 2hr film.

(Re edited thoughts on the matte4r, in my Tumblr journal)

#oscars 2024 #ryan gosling #barbie #academy awards #the suckening

0 notes

ecsundance · 5 months

Text

What is Indie Film?

One of the main goals of this winter term course is to identify what exactly an indie film is. Coming into this course I brought with me some presuppositions that I believed to encapsulate indie film with a satisfactory level of description. Some of these preconceptions included a low budget, a very small crew, unknown actors, experimental or unconventional techniques, unique aesthetic choices that are not typical for a blockbuster film, and the separation from massive entertainment corporations. After reading the assigned course material I am not entirely convinced that these traits I had come up with should be left out of consideration of what indie film is, but they are certainly not requirements.

To shed some light on the conflict of the traits I have laid out in relation to whether they are required of a film to be considered Indie, I turn to Searchlight (2004). The film cost $16 million dollars to make which does not at all fit within the idea that an indie film must have a small budget, and simultaneously it was backed by Fox Searchlight so it is clearly not separate from massive entertainment corporations. For this reason some people would not consider the film indie. Interestingly enough this film went on to have great success, and some regard it with high esteem as an indie film, so much so that the film, "won six 2004 Independent Spirit Awards, including Best Picture" (Newman 12). What is noticeable here is that multiple groups of people can have legitimate claims to the "indieness" of a film. Some hold things like the economic backing and connection to larger production companies as a large part of considering something worthy of the indie title or not, while others are more interested in the stylistic approach. With these conflicting points of view being the case, it seems that if you were to wonder why someone, or a group such as a festival or an art cinema, is considering something indie you must understand their engagement with texts and the medium of film itself.

Naturally this can feel overwhelming, but it is something worth noticing and tracking as the medium continues to evolve. I myself am just being exposed to this world of indie cinema, and have not fully fledged my thoughts on what exactly I am looking for when I say, "I am going to go see an indie film" and to be honest I don't know that I ever will have a concrete definition to provide for anyone.

What I can say is, I have noticed that festivals all around the country that are putting on these indie films have a certain taste that is unique to their geographical area. This unique taste is often the attraction for film festival goers. I imagine these differences in showings have evolved over time and will continue to evolve as that is the nature of film itself. I notice these unique tastes, which is part of the brand of these festivals, by questioning a guest speaker at one of our class sessions. The guest speaker was named Jolene Pinder who has held positions such as festival executive director for the New Orleans Film Festival. She is also, in the year of our Lord 2024, a current Sundance producing fellow. Since the concept of "indieness" varies depending on groups, and more specifically person you are speaking with, I asked her if the New Orleans Film Festival was looking for a specific type of film. She provided an answer, and I am doing her no justice by relaying her answer back to you, that fell along the lines of the festival's focus was on southern and LGBTQ film makers. She then went into detail of the other festivals around the country and their "brand", that is the types of films they are showing. I imagine each of these festivals have valid reasoning to call the films they screen indie, and most likely there is great difference between any two films in regards to style or economics.

It seems to me that a good way to understand indie as a category is to read what others are saying about it, and be sure to read up on what they have said about the concept in the past. In his book Indie: an american film culture, Michael z. Newman also provides some viewing strategies to determine a film as indie. One of these strategies that stuck out the most to me is, "When in Doubt, Read as Anti-Hollywood" (Newman 42). As I understand it currently, it can be a good marker of an indie film if it is unconventional compared to the blockbuster films you see in the theater. This is a feedback loop in the modern day I believe. Indie films seem to be something more people are seeking out, and Hollywood seems to have noticed this and have begun to adopt stylistic conventions of indie films that have done commercially well. This in turn causes film makers to come up with creative ways to subvert Hollywood, beginning the cycle again.

Ben Wilson

#sundance

0 notes

darkhumourcas · 5 months

Text

Four Lions - A True British Comedy

Title – Four Lions (2010)

Director – Chris Morris

Cast – Riz Ahmed, Nigel Lindsay, Kayvan Novak, Arsher Ali, Adeel Akhtar

Plot – Four Lions is a mockumentary-esk-style film that follows the story of four friends trying to become Jihad soldiers. In the process, their own idiocracy guides them to a misguided interpretation of the word, leading them to believe they have to become suicide bombers to make it to heaven; in other words, become terrorists. Led by Omar (Riz Ahmed), these comrades undergo an unconventional journey to finding their place through religion.

Four Lions examines where the roots that drive people to such extreme acts like terrorism originate from. With the use of comedy, Chris Morris’ characterization of the comrades as comically inept brings into dispute the integrity and coherence of these extremist ideologies. This leads to the question of why anyone would ever do something as absurd as this. But once again, Morris challenges how stereotypes can contribute to the misunderstanding of complex issues. By using satire to portray terrorists, Four Lions provokes the audience to analyse different narratives presented to them by the media. This film also addresses the danger of not being accepted by the community you live in; this type of loneliness can lead people into violent outrages.

“I think I'm confused, but I'm not sure!” - Waj (Kayvan Novak)

This quote from Waj expresses what I believe to be the overall impression of the four friends. Each character is struggling one way or another with their religious ambivalence, leaving them all a little bit confused. Waj especially comes off as mentally challenged, so one can easily pity his character as just being manipulated into believing he wants to be a suicide bomber. One of the reasons this film works so well as a comedy is because of how the comrades interact with each other. They are an extremely incompetent bunch who can’t agree on the target for their attack - being stuck on deciding between their Mosque, a Boots Pharmacy, or the Internet. The last one doesn’t even make sense because how can one bomb the Internet? Their inability to make decisions as a group makes one ponder as to how they think they would ever be able to commit this act of terrorism successfully. The group's unofficial leader, Omar, is seen struggling between his misguided beliefs and his sense of humanity. Omar attempts to guide the group into what he believes will guarantee them a place in Heaven. This role is brilliantly played by Riz Ahmed, who actually received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Actor in the film Sound of Metal (Darius Marder, 2019).

The film Four Lions resembles a mockumentary style, giving this feeling that we, the audience, are involved in their idiotic scheme. The screenplay demonstrates Chris Morris, Jesse Armstrong, and Sam Bain's ability to balance out the humour and seriousness of the topic at hand. Jesse Armstrong is also the creator of Succession (2018), which won the Golden Globe for Best Television Series on the 7th of January, 2024. Succession is a more serious-toned comedy than Four Lions, which also incorporates dark humour and satire. While Four Lions has loads of hilarious moments, there are certain moments that really address the severity of what these four friends want to go through. Morris successfully uses comedy to shed light on this taboo topic. These moments bring the audience back into the reality of the consequences of such actions. This film is able to incorporate comedy not only through dialogue but also through camera movement. Four Lions utilizes camera movement to invoke humour to its fullest potential, notably with panning from one character saying or doing something to another character's reaction to what was just done. This effect only further adds to the value of comedy as it permits you to see raw, “natural” reactions.

Concluding Thoughts – Overall, Four Lions encapsulates a side of British culture that is not often represented in the media. Through satirical comedy, Chris Morris brings up a prevalent issue of how (typically) young British men of Muslim faith get roped into these distorted extremist views. This film includes screenwriters and actors who have gone on to achieve highly respected awards and nominations. I see this film as authentically British and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys dry humour!

My final rating – ★★★★☆

0 notes

denimbex1986 · 2 months

Text

'This year he earned a Golden Globe nomination for his compelling work as a man who encounters the ghosts of his parents in Andrew Haugh's Strangers . But for the Irishman Andrew Scott, that was one of many recognitions, including another nomination for the same award as best supporting actor for playing the priest in the comedy series Fleabag , for which he won the Critics Choice, and the Bafta in the same category for playing Jim Moriarty in the British Sherlock . But if something was missing in his career to become the man of the moment, it is his leading role in Ripley , the eight-episode miniseries that arrives on Netflix on Thursday the 4th and in which, from the hand of Steve Zaillian, Oscar winner for the script for Schindler's List , has given new life to the iconic con artist created by Patricia Highsmith and previously portrayed on film by Alain Delon, Dennis Hopper, Matt Damon, John Malkovich and Barry Pepper.

How difficult was it to forget about Matt Damon as Tom Ripley when working on the series?

It wasn't a problem. Obviously that's a movie that people love and I'm one of its biggest fans. I love the performances of everyone who participated. Therefore, that was one of our concerns, because when people hear about this project, the first thing they ask is if it is a remake, and what sense does it make to remake something that already had a very successful version. But from the beginning I knew that was exactly what Steven Zaillian, our writer and director, wanted to avoid. There have been several adaptations of this story over the years, but Steven had a very peculiar vision from the day he read the novel many years ago. The opportunity to tell it in a miniseries was a very interesting dynamic for him. For example, he was convinced that it had to be filmed in black and white.

Because it says?

Because that was the starting point to explain to the audience how they should see it, which is very similar to how we would read a novel, which does not take us two hours. We read it over a certain period of time, which allows us to pay attention to certain aspects. Sometimes it is the plot and other times it is the characters that catch our attention. In the miniseries, we have the opportunity to share some time with them and see how mine thinks and makes mistakes. As with all great literary characters, Tom Ripley has a certain reputation as a psychopath or serial killer. But those appreciations never interested me. I don't see him as a natural serial killer. I think he is someone who is very fallible and does what he doesn't have to do. We see how he makes mistakes in real time, but at the same time we can see that he has a natural talent for deceiving. The truth is that the first time I spoke with Steve I put aside my concern about previous interpretations. And I'm sure the same will happen to viewers when they see the unique look we have at this story.

Don't you see him as a psychopath either?

No, I always had a lot of resistance to diagnosing the character with a very specific psychiatric definition. I think the reason why he has endured over time and has become an icon is because he continues to generate many doubts in us. We find it fascinating, terrifying and uncomfortable because we don't have much information about it. What Tom tells about him is not very reliable. One cannot be very sure what his nationality is, his age or his sexual orientation.

Have you ever encountered a real-life Tom Ripley?

It's something I get asked often. But I think what attracts us to the character is not whether we know someone like him, but what part of Tom Ripley we carry inside. That's what Patricia Highsmith achieved in her novel, because we side with this man who does a lot of bad things, because he is someone who has been ignored by society and who has many talents. He is a con artist, a true con artist, who resorts to tricks to make a living. But he is ignored, and he does not have access to any of the things that the other characters in the story enjoy, such as art, music, and beauty. When ignored people discover that something like this exists, they find within themselves the fury that they have always carried inside. In the story there is a very interesting and subtle message, which is that everyone has the right to enjoy beauty and art. It's not just for the rich.

How did you get into Tom Ripley's head?

I do not practice the theory of the method. But it was a challenge because ideologically we are very different, although you always have to find some connection with the characters you play. I've only murdered four people... Seriously, when you're filming for a year, the macabre scenes only take a little while. Most of them were domestic moments, in which they talked about unrequited love or loneliness. The complicated thing for me was the energy that the whole process required, because there was a good dose of action scenes. Plus, Tom is in 95 percent of the scenes in an eight-hour series, and that requires a tremendous amount of acting. I had to be available all the time. It was like this for a year, without rest. In psychological terms, I played a very lonely character, who is far from home and has to deal with the language barrier. It was a great privilege, but it was also a challenge.

Would you at least say that Tom Ripley is a villain?

Although they have every right to say that it is, but I don't see it that way. He seems like a very complex person to me, and to say that he is a villain is to simplify him. I certainly think he's an antihero. As I said, I think the great achievement of the story, which is palpable in the miniseries, is that as a viewer you want someone we shouldn't support to do well. We want you to get your way. And that's because we see ourselves as Tom Ripley. The idea was for the audience to discover what it's like to be someone like him. We all have our share of darkness, and in some ways we are a mystery to ourselves, even if we are not necessarily murderers. It's funny, because of all the characters I've played, this is the one that raises the most questions from the audience. And I love that, because questions about his sexual orientation or his nationality will never be answered. We will never know.'

#Andrew Scott #Netflix #Ripley #The Talented Mr Ripley #Patricia Highsmith #Golden Globes #All of Us Strangers #Hot Priest #Fleabag #Moriarty #Sherlock #Steven Zaillian #Schindler's List

1 note · View note