Yeah, they made fun of that with a much more brilliant movie Tropic Thunder's Simple Jack... Ah, the good ol' days when we didn't take Oscar winning so seriously... I'ld rather watch Tropic Thunder again than all this year's Oscar winning movies.
But he did wear a fat suit (which doesn't bother me by the way). I just think it's a little demeaning to Fraser's work the suggestion that without the prosthetics there's not much to his performance, especially when it's written as a response to Elvis losing awards, which is another movie that relied a LOT on prosthetics to help the performances. Did Gary Oldman not deserve his win, for all the prosthetics used in Darkest Hour? Perhaps. Maybe there is an argument that at a certain point the actor is hidden behind too much makeup to really know what makes a performance. It's a bit of a slippery slope in my mind though.
You should've reported Matthew to a gort if he truly was being hostile to you which from this thread doesn't appear evident as being hostile. Since you didn't report him then it's on you.
Thanks for sharing, but I usually take my advice from the moderators on matters such as these as I have done before.
I spent 2 weeks on here talking about Oscar trends and posting predictions by experts and casual observers. They bucked so many trends by going with Fraser it boggles the mind. Going with SAG over BAFTA when they differ. Caving to sentimental narrative. Giving it to someone not in a Best Picture nominated film. Not going with the Biopic actor. One could say all of that was because Fraser was so great that he broke those trends. I agree he helped break the not caving to sentimental narrative by overselling his emotions during previous wins and interviews. As for the other three, I think they went with trends I wasn't factoring in like the disability one you mentioned and Austin being young, as well as him being viewed as a newcomer.
Right, I've tried to be respectful of RSteven's situation, that's no position any husband wants to find themselves in, which is why I thought contacting him privately might be the better way than calling him out in this thread - but as is evident by the chain of posts, he went after me, and again. I asked he stop, and again. Since he insists on publicly dragging me through the mud, my single Private Message, in response to his "Matthew has a history of..." attack post is: The replies I received from him will remain private as far as I'm concerned, there's no use in this thread being derailed further. I stupidly thought I could nip this in the bud privately, man-to-man, I was wrong. I've got nothing more to say about RSteven, or his posts, other than to wish him and his wife the best during this challenging time. Can we get back to the movie now?
It's pathetic really. Some of the anonymous ballots had people going against Austin based on age, as if it's not supposed to be about performance only. This is why BAFTA seems so much more legit. Not because my guy won, but that they also weren't homers for Farrell. How hold do they expect someone to be who's playing a guy who only lived to 42 who got big at 21?
If that's true about basing it on Austin's age then they should've been around when these folks won an Oscar as their first film role... 11 actors who won Oscars for their first-ever film roles These based on age biases could be influenced by those who aren't boomers, boomers being Elvis's primary audience. Or did I get that stat wrong?
I think it applies mostly to lead actor and not supporting roles or even lead actress. Supporting roles aren't viewed quite as seriously and IMO they don't view women as seriously as they do men. Adrien Brody was only 29 but that was IMO a real fluke. You had two greats going head to head with Daniel Day Lewis and Jack Nicholson, who had actually tied for Critics Choice, with Lewis taking SAG and BAFTA and Nicholson the Golden Globe in the same category as Lewis. Brody's win was a result of Lewis and Nicholson splitting votes. If Farrell was a tad stronger in Banshees, maybe Austin could have done the same.
I liken the experience of watching the Elvis movie in how it made me feel different about the world by recreating a re-imagined past that felt like a dream as I did when I saw the first Star Wars movie back in the '70's. Both made me feel I was in a better world from it being occupied by people who could create such beautiful and original stories and worlds that stayed with me much longer than the movie played in theaters. I still remember how I felt watching Star Wars for the first time. Heck, even the trailer shown on Johnny Carson gave me a jolt and made me giddy. My world suddenly felt modern. I felt hopeful for my future. Growing up in mostly poor, rural farm country Star Wars changed the way I felt about the world as being good and full of smart people who care and show this in their artistry in the craft of movie making as was done in recreating the experience like a time machine to a better version of Elvis during those times living in those places that made it feel like no one cared enough to provide a way out of hard times. The movie recreated the hopefulness Elvis brought to the world back then by showing a new way to express one's self through music and the way he carried himself with unflinching confidence with complete honesty. I don't think they give Oscars based on what I just described.
It was a shame for Butler but once Fraser took the SAG he had the best chances to win last night. The film has still done exceptionally well, much better than I thought it would do. It has brought new attention to Elvis and his music and that's what really matters.
Baz’s hard sell. Was it counter-productive in the end? Also aligning that campaign so closely to the Presley family who proceeded to shoot themselves in the foot following Lisa’s death? You couldn’t make it up really. Ah well, I’m off to watch Emily and Daisy Jones & The Six. Over and out…
I don't care that The Fabelmans, Banshees and TAR also got shutout. Those films didn't help bring people back out to the theatres post pandemic. They threw bones to the other two that helped cinema, with Sound going to Maverick and Costumes to Black Panther. You'd have to combine the domestic grosses of Fabelmans, Banshees and TAR and multiply it 4.5 times to do what Elvis did domestically, and combine them and multiply by 4 to do what Elvis did worldwide. Shutting out Elvis with all the talk about films being meant to be seen in the theater, and it doing as well as it did with all the demographics that were more high risk for Covid (Boomers, some even older than Boomers, as well as Gen X who aren't spring chickens and even early Millennials who many have underlying health issues) is an insult. What's sad is Austin has to kiss Hollywood's ass for his career when IMO they screwed him twice just because they felt bad for screwing Fraser. Both of Austin's biggest losses were to the Hollywood industry, SAG and The Oscars. His wins vs Fraser were Industry but non Hollywood with BAFTA and AACTA International, and media with Golden Globe. If Austin can beat such a good performance by Fraser within film industries that aren't Hollywood, but lose both within Hollywood, it says a lot about Hollywood having issues with either his age or experience. The UK and Australia don't appear to be that shallow
Hollywood loves a real-life comeback story and that’s why I’ll speculate Frazier got the votes. Soon to be a Lifetime movie no doubt.
I had a feeling he was going to win. But if it helps Brendan then maybe it's for the best he did win, even though I think Butler obviously deserved it. I read an interview Brendan did and it's depressing about what happened to him. Anyway I'm just thinking out loud here.
All true and tbh I wasn't even that impressed by Fraser even when not comparing him to Austin. When comparing them it's an absolute joke that so many jumped on Fraser's you know what over comeback crap. Because that's all it is. I'll never be convinced he had a better performance than what Austin pulled off I also want to say that I am not a lifelong or over the top Elvis guy like many here. I'm a Beatles guy, unless my avatar didn't give that away
ELVIS just wasn't that good of a movie. It's a lot like The Doors movie from the 1990s. Goofily over the top and crass and full of exaggerated versions of the truth with an impressive mimic job by the lead actor. But too sensationalistic and gaudy.
I think Austin Butler carried the movie. Without his performance the movie wouldn't have worked. When I saw that Luhrmann was going to direct it, I knew the movie would be a bit over the top but I thought it was good enough.
I just read your post to my wife. Like you, the original film called Star Wars (none of this Episode IV: A New Hope stuff) was a significant film in her life. She estimates she saw it in the theater 100 times, even sneaking a tape recorder into the theater to record the soundtrack of the movie to listen to at home. Like you, she grew up in a rural area, a Kansas farm girl, and movies were an escape. I honestly think Baz Luhrman will be appreciated far more in the future than he is today. He's only made a handful of films, but all of them have been extraordinary one way or another.
Please don't put what Val Kiilmer did as Jim Morrison on the same level as what Austin did as Elvis. Val didn't have to play someone over the course of three decades, learn various stage performance styles for different eras, do half of the singing, and perfect all sorts of different mannerisms, facial expressions vocal cadences and characteristics, all that were changing as they do in all of us over the decades
