Oscar Best Movie Poll - Who *Should* Win

[dps]

that's another problem with the "stop bullying" campaign - the failure to acknowledge that kids may be bullied or want to commit suicide for reasons other than being gay. 

Yeah, in fact I'm sure that most victims of bullying aren't gay.  I'd say that at least a quarter (and probably way more than that) of HS students get bullied at least on occasion, and clearly those aren't all gay. 

In my HS we didn't even have any students who were openly gay, though there were a few that were assumed to be gay, and several more that were suspected of being gay;  they didn't seem to get bullied any more than any other random student.  And at least one of the guys who was assumed to be gay apparently wasn't--I ran into him several years later and he asked me if I knew why he got picked on in school, and I brought up the fact that everybody thought he was gay.  He got very upset, saying that he isn't gay, and hadn't even realized that people thought that he was.  He actually started crying about it.

[Valmy]

He started crying about it?  That seems a bit of an extreme reaction for something that happened way back in High School.

My wife got shit for being a Lesbian, since once she rejected some guy his vengeance was to spread that around.  But I certainly got my share of bullying in Middle School and nobody suspected I was gay.  Just easy prey.

[celedhring]

My bullies had terrible gaydars. I don't think they got a single one right.

[Ideologue]

A director "directs" everything in the film. In theory - although that's highly dependent on your personal power - you decide everything that goes in the film, using the "proposals" of all the other professionals. You correct the actors' performances, you ask the screenwriter to change things in the script and approve them, you sit besides the editor and give him instructions, you talk with the DoP to have this or this kind of photography for a given scene, etc... You don't supplant them or their work, but you certainly direct them. So in a way, it's hard to have the best picture without the best director.

However, I'm a believer that "best director" awards should focus only on the only exclusive competence a director has: deciding shots and mise en scène, and then include the director among the recipients of "best picture" awards (nowadays only the producers are awarded).

Boyhood is an achievement of its director though--making a movie about a child protagonist aging over 12 years and dealing with all the shit inherent to that, while delivering a watchable film at all.  It's not flashy, but it was hard.  You can make a sound argument that you win no points for difficulty (Russian Ark kind of sucks, for example), but Linklater deserved the nomination as much as a lot of folks.  Of course, Boyhood was deeply unimpressive for a movie framed as some kind of meaningful emotional experience: that kid was way too cool to stand for much other than himself, and why he's interesting in that regard is a question Linklater doesn't entirely seem to realize needs an answer.

That said, I think Inarritu's win there was right and correct.  Birdman is definitely the better-directed film.  If I were to list my top five directorial efforts of last year, he and Anderson would be on it.

[derspiess]

I really don't recall much bullying in my high school. Occasionally seniors or juniors would haze the sophomores (and freshman when we moved to grades 9-12), but most of that was harmless rite of passage.

[Ideologue]

He started crying about it?  That seems a bit of an extreme reaction for something that happened way back in High School.

I think we might have figured out why he got bullied, though, unfortunately.  Children are basically animals.

[celedhring]

A director "directs" everything in the film. In theory - although that's highly dependent on your personal power - you decide everything that goes in the film, using the "proposals" of all the other professionals. You correct the actors' performances, you ask the screenwriter to change things in the script and approve them, you sit besides the editor and give him instructions, you talk with the DoP to have this or this kind of photography for a given scene, etc... You don't supplant them or their work, but you certainly direct them. So in a way, it's hard to have the best picture without the best director.

However, I'm a believer that "best director" awards should focus only on the only exclusive competence a director has: deciding shots and mise en scène, and then include the director among the recipients of "best picture" awards (nowadays only the producers are awarded).

Boyhood is an achievement of its director though--making a movie about a child protagonist aging over 12 years and dealing with all the shit inherent to that, while delivering a watchable film at all.  It's not flashy, but it was hard.  You can make a sound argument that you win no points for difficulty (Russian Ark kind of sucks, for example), but Linklater deserved the nomination as much as a lot of folks.  Of course, Boyhood was deeply unimpressive for a movie framed as some kind of meaningful emotional experience: that kid was way too cool to stand for much other than himself, and why he's interesting in that regard is a question Linklater doesn't entirely seem to realize needs an answer.

That said, I think Inarritu's win there was right and correct.  Birdman is definitely the better-directed film.  If I were to list my top five directorial efforts of last year, he and Anderson would be on it.

No, that's merit of the film producers. Linklater is also a producer in Boyhood.

[Ideologue]

Maintaining the tone, building a (routinely modified) story out of the footage, and keeping the actors straight is the producers' job?  Then no wonder they get the Best Picture action figures.

[celedhring]

Maintaining the tone, building a (routinely modified) story out of the footage, and keeping the actors straight is the producers' job?  Then no wonder they get the Best Picture action figures.

I thought you meant the technical and practical challenges, which were certainly considerable. What you mention is certainly the purview of the director, but what's so hard about it? There are lots of other films about boys growing up that maintain tone and build a story, they are just shot conventionally.

[Malthus]

He started crying about it?  That seems a bit of an extreme reaction for something that happened way back in High School.

My wife got shit for being a Lesbian, since once she rejected some guy his vengeance was to spread that around.  But I certainly got my share of bullying in Middle School and nobody suspected I was gay.  Just easy prey.

When I was in HS, the notion that "being gay" was an acceptable (by bullies) reason for bullying was already on its way out; it was perfectly possible to be part of an in-group and be openly gay.

Essentially, the people who were bullied were people who were sufficiently antisocial, for whatever reasons, to lack an in-group sufficient to protect them from that kind of thing - once you had one, bullying simply ceased being a factor. 

[dps]

When I was in HS, the notion that "being gay" was an acceptable (by bullies) reason for bullying was already on its way out; it was perfectly possible to be part of an in-group and be openly gay.

When I was in school, there was essentially no reason that was unacceptable to the bullies.  Suspected of being gay?  Get bullied.  Not suspected of being gay?  Get bullied get bullied anyway.  Family poor?  Get bullied.  Family rich?  Get bullied.  Wear glasses?  Get bullied.  Don't wear glasses?  Get bullied anyway.  See a pattern here?

[Valmy]

Yep.  The crime that got you bullied was being socially vulnerable.  Then whatever it was they could fling at you was fair game.

[Malthus]

When I was in HS, the notion that "being gay" was an acceptable (by bullies) reason for bullying was already on its way out; it was perfectly possible to be part of an in-group and be openly gay.

When I was in school, there was essentially no reason that was unacceptable to the bullies.  Suspected of being gay?  Get bullied.  Not suspected of being gay?  Get bullied get bullied anyway.  Family poor?  Get bullied.  Family rich?  Get bullied.  Wear glasses?  Get bullied.  Don't wear glasses?  Get bullied anyway.  See a pattern here?

Well, sure. As I said, the real "crime" that attracted bullying was not belonging to an in-group able to shield someone - that is, being, as Valmy put it, "socially vulnerable".

Point here is that, for the people who went through school immediately before me, "being gay" was a reason to be socially vulnerable, because it was considered, by kids, as being socially unacceptable. If yiu were gay, or suspected of being gay, you could not count on the protection of an in-group. That lack of protection was what attracted the bullies.

[Valmy]

Point here is that, for the people who went through school immediately before me, "being gay" was a reason to be socially vulnerable, because it was considered, by kids, as being socially unacceptable. If yiu were gay, or suspected of being gay, you could not count on the protection of an in-group. That lack of protection was what attracted the bullies.

Yeah but we are old(er) people.  The "stop bullying" thing is about people getting bullied for being gay today not in 1967.

[Malthus]

Point here is that, for the people who went through school immediately before me, "being gay" was a reason to be socially vulnerable, because it was considered, by kids, as being socially unacceptable. If yiu were gay, or suspected of being gay, you could not count on the protection of an in-group. That lack of protection was what attracted the bullies.

Yeah but we are old(er) people.  The "stop bullying" thing is about people getting bullied for being gay today not in 1967.

That probably varies from place to place. "Being gay" as a HS kid isn't the same here in Toronto in 2015 as it was in 1980, but I have no idea what the situation is like in other places - Toronto is an extremely gay-friendly place overall.