MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: Parasite, 1917, OAITH, and Oscar (S...

OT: Parasite, 1917, OAITH, and Oscar (SPOILERS for All Movies; Hopefully not major)

posted 5 years ago by ecarle (14979)
33 replies | jump to latest

I am enjoying the "Brad Pitt Victory Tour" as he racks up one Best Supporting Actor award after another for Once upon a Time in Hollywood, effortlessly cool on stage and armed with what seems to be an army of Hollywood's best comedy writers for his one-liners:

He picked up one award noting QT's foot fetish: "Quentin has separated more women from their shoes than TSA."

He picked up another award with self-deprecation: "What a stretch for me. I play a guy who is gets high all the time, takes his shirt off, and has trouble with his wife."

I can't wait to hear the one-liners Brad has ready for his Oscar win. Its well deserved. As Jack Palance said "the performance doesn't win the Oscar...the character does" and Pitt's Cliff Booth is a true hero(with a war hero's killer streak inside) and probably the warmest, nicest character Pitt has ever played. (I don't think Cliff killed his wife, and if he did, from what we saw of her, she manifestly deserved it.)

OATIH has Pitt locked and QT's screenplay probably locked for Oscar; Leo can only gaze on in admiration and it remains to be seen if the movie can win Best Picture.

I have seen two competitors in the past two weeks: Parasite(which won Best Picture somewhere) and 1917(which won Best Picture somewhere else.) The Competition is hot(except I think that The Irishman is out of the running; take that, Netflix!)

1917 first: lots of critics note how the movie is meant to look like one continuous shot -- but I've not read a comparative mention of "Rope" in any review. I guess the "Rope" experiment doesn't much matter anymore, but 1917 has the help of CGI to get 'er done; Hitch had a much harder job.

Truth be told, the continuous shot gimmick in 1917 is sublimated to its "straight line" story approach. 2 young WWI soldiers are chosen for a mission: walk and run a number of miles on foot to deliver a message to another command that will save 1600 British soldier's lives -- including that of the older brother of one of the two young men. There is irony here: the OTHER guy was simply chosen at random by the brother for this assignment before either of them knew how dangerous it was -- the brass WANTED the brother to take the job(he has reason to do it) but the OTHER guy is...a random, arbitrary choice.

The trek of the two young lads through trenches, bomb booby traps, rats, air attack, etc turn 1917 into a period video game in which every new level of effort proves more scary and dangerous than that before. Its a good movie, filled with suspense and irony and "war gore" and -- Best Picture? Oh, maybe.

Parasite oddly enough reminded me a bit of OAITH in the playing -- two hours of edgy comedy that explodes into a violent bloody ending -- and with both films, I needed/will need a second viewing to get a better handle on "what happens to who where and when."

That said, there is some violence and nastiness well before the end of Parasite that makes it - oddly enough -- MORE nasty than QT's rather sweet new film. QT's movie ambles from place to place; Parasite follows a very structured path of surprise after surprise after surprise(and actually rather resembles 1917 in that regard.)

I'll offer a couple of criticisms of Parasite before praising it. I don't see as many foreign films(to a Yank) as others do, but I often find that material that might have been rather banal in an American studio film for some reason is elevated if the movie is foreign. For instance, in Parasite, somebody makes a statement that you can't plan anything in your life; it never goes according to plan. A reasonably profound statement, but a LOT of American films have taken it up as a theme and I felt that it just wasn't that big a deal for Parasite to seem like such a profound film to rely on it. Also, I thought some of the acting in Parasite was a bit amateur, again, there is something to be said for the professionalism of the studio film.

With that out of the way, I can say that I found Parasite an engaging and then disturbing film. Its one of those "pox on all your houses" tales in which both the underprivileged poor and the spoiled rich come out of things pretty badly. You aren't really meant to "root" for either side of this class warfare, and indeed, the poor people pretty much hurt OTHER poor people(message there being, I suppose, that when the rich are above it all, the poor must fight for the scraps.)

There is this good exchange among the poor people:

"For rich people, they are nice."
"They are nice, BECAUSE they are rich."

Again, if your life isn't based on raw survival, you can afford to be nice. And we never really know if the husband's wealth was earned on merit or inherited first(he works, his stay at home wife does not.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The main set of poor people in this film -- father, mother, son, daughter -- get onto the staff of the rich people's home by crooked subterfuge that escalates: the son forges a college degree to become an English tutor for the family; the daughter forges her entire IDENTITY to become an art tutor, and then it gets really nasty: a male chauffer is framed for sexual acts in the car to get the father the chauffeur job; and a female housekeeper is driven out via food allergies so mom can take her job.

So the poor family in Parasite are...crooks. (And not very good at something as simple as making pizza boxes -- suggesting indolence?) But it can all be reversed: who among us would want to survive based on making pizza boxes? And who among us might "descend" to crookery to gain access to a wealthy family's largesse? (Well, MANY among us, I feel, would NOT do these crooked things, but Parasite wants us to ponder things both ways.)

As for the rich family in Parasite, well, the kids are spoiled; mom is a pretty but empty vessel, and the dad is only going to befriend his poor help so far before pulling back and asserting his role as employer.

With all of this as the "set up" and with the time an American studio film WON"T give to character development and "pox on all your houses" discomfort...about halfway through the movie a major twist arrives that drives the rest of the film with inevitable doom and tragedy and bloodshed.

I liked Parasite, but I didn't love it and yet, I know that both 1917 and Parasite are Oscar movies -- unique, "about something," ambitious.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

As 2019 becomes 2020, I've been watching my DVD of OATIH a lot, and I fear my love of how QT operates(both in general, and this one specific time in this one specific movie) is blotting out the rest. I'm not only a fan -- I'm an addict. It was the same thing with Hitch. The other movies are "also rans" to me. (Indeed, I could only really enjoy The Irishman twice, it is starting to lose its "tie" with OAITH as my favorite of 2019.)

I am wondering: can OAITH go all the way to Best Picture? Maybe. At the Golden Globes, it won "Best Picture, Musical or Comedy" as 1917 won "Best Picture, Drama." So it is in the running. Parasite is a lock for Best Foreign Film, a maybe to take the Best Picture award(like Slumdog Millionaire?) 1917 is more "important" than OATIH, but much less "in the culture" right now.

Its actually one of the more interesting Oscar years.

But I think when all is said and done, its the "Brad Pitt victory tour" that is most delightful. He's paid his dues. Its his time. And he's being ultra-charming about it.

Like a movie star.

PS. Joaquin Phoenix Best Actor for Joker? Well, I'm the biggest Joker fan around but...he wasn't playing the Joker. Oh, well. And I've been watching that clip of him confronting the DeNiro character on the talk show and...boy is it overdone and obvious. Oh, well.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

But I think when all is said and done, its the "Brad Pitt victory tour" that is most delightful. He's paid his dues. Its his time. And he's being ultra-charming about it.

And it's pretty much a Laura Dern (for Marriage Story) victory tour on the Supporting Actress side too.

I saw 1917 last week too and was...lukewarm. It's impressive technically - camera stuff, production/set design are automatic Oscars - but the hyper-linear story with its relentless grunts-eye-view was necessarily a bit dull. To keep things interesting the film-makers inevitably tart up some of the linear episodes with realism-straining action-nonsense (could anyone really understand the bit of the film where there was sort of a progressive mine collapse and suddenly we were in The Temple of Doom?) & movie-conceits of all-sorts (German pilot rescued on fire from crashed plane turns out to be a suicidal, stabbing psycho following the ironclad, completely unrealistic and immoral rule of Hollywood war movies that any kindness to or failure to kill prisoners *will* be brutally punished). The grunts' eye view means we never get any sense of what was distinctive about WW1 beyond maybe its general immobility & quick descent into resigned pointlessness (1917 is 2 years after it's clear to everyone that trench warfare in France & Belgium is a kind of status quo inferno swallowing up lives by the million). The war's roots in absurd nationalism and class-based decaying imperialism, etc., are unaddressed and all Germans we meet are either faceless or suicidal psychos. Oh well...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And it's pretty much a Laura Dern (for Marriage Story) victory tour on the Supporting Actress side too.

---

Yes, that's true. But she doesn't seem to have been given the "one liner squad" assigned to Pitt for her speeches, and Pitt is, after all these years(it took time) a very major leading man kind of movie star. In fact, that's the "deal" about Pitt's winning year: its gonna be for Best SUPPORTING Actor, following in the tradition of such leading men support as Sean Connery and George Clooney(in a category that used to be reserved for the likes of Martin Balsam and Ed Begley, SR.) Leo, with his "Revanant" Best Actor Oscar, can afford to be generous and let Pitt take the Oscar this year.

Meanwhile, Laura Dern has built a long and impressive career that goes back to a blockbuster(Jurassic Park) and builds in dramatic work from there. Her Hitchcock connection is a sweet one: daddy Bruce Dern seems to be powerfully growing in stature as a "great" simply by being the Last Man Standing from his generation of character talent, and briefly, stardom ("Family Plot" now has a very major star in it.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Back to Pitt. There is a now defunct internet movie essay magazine(I'll guess it can still be archive-accessed, but it closed down) that did good studies of movie stars and character people, and back in the late 90's, they wrote an essay about how Pitt had had stardom for years but hadn't really gotten a blockbuster on his resume. The theme of the article was "Hollywood moguls know that they have a star in Brad Pitt, but its going to take some years for him to become one."

Part of the problem was that back then, Pitt was willing to play awful people(the greasy psycho in Kalifornia) and weird people(the nutcase in Twelve Monkeys) and to play against his looks. Even in 7even, he's not a particularly likeable or smart guy. And I always found his facial features to be somewhat reptilian (he lacked the pleasantness of the Robert Redford face, and yet he was compared to Redford and actually made one movie with him.

I think Pitt started to get charming when he was paired with George Clooney in Ocean's Eleven. They DID look like Paul Newman and Robert Redford, together(QT says that's Leo and Brad, no it was George and Brad) and Pitt warmed up and worked his suave in friendly competition with George.

By the time he did Inglorious Basterds for QT, Pitt was a star and his Aldo Raine is a far cry from nice guy Cliff Booth. But a FUNNY far cry -- Pitt played Aldo with a slightly dense squint(at all times) and an over-articulate hillbilly line delivery, and I thought he was the best thing in the movie. (Yes, better than Big Splash Chris Waltz, who was a bit too much, you ask me.)

Then came Moneyball, in which Pitt perfected his "newer style of talking"(see also: Nicholson and Pacino's vocal changes) and now he's a full fledged star. Cliff Booth's vocal inflections in OAITH are heavy on Moneyball with a dash of Aldo Raine.

Pitt's got perhaps 20 more years of stardom (heading for old guy years) and I think he's going to be a very big one now.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And in OAITH, even though Pitt's got a "dark side"(a propensity for violence if pushed; the possible murder of his wife), he comes across as the best of friends to his fading star buddy/employer(Leo) and his literal support(by Cliff, of Rick Dalton) is a classic case of a SUPPORTING character who literally SUPPORTS his friend.

Twice in the movie -- at the beginning and the end -- Leo says to Brad "You're a good friend" and twice Brad answers the same way: "I try." With all the charm he can muster. There's also the moment early on when Brad calms down a crying Leo over his has been worries and says nicely "So...you're feelin' better now." Its a great performance.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I saw 1917 last week too and was...lukewarm. It's impressive technically - camera stuff, production/set design are automatic Oscars - but the hyper-linear story with its relentless grunts-eye-view was necessarily a bit dull.

--

Roughly how I felt. I'm not really an "Oscar bait guy." Movies like 1917 are a bit of a "duty" to watch, a bit of a chore. OAITH on the other hand, has been an ever-growing source of pure joy.

--

To keep things interesting the film-makers inevitably tart up some of the linear episodes with realism-straining action-nonsense (could anyone really understand the bit of the film where there was sort of a progressive mine collapse and suddenly we were in The Temple of Doom?)

--

No..but I've always found those trenches to be claustrophobic, and that trench/mine shaft was booby trapped to collapse.

---

& movie-conceits of all-sorts (German pilot rescued on fire from crashed plane turns out to be a suicidal, stabbing psycho following the ironclad, completely unrealistic and immoral rule of Hollywood war movies that any kindness to or failure to kill prisoners *will* be brutally punished).

---

This versus the end of "Lifeboat," in which a young, scared Nazi is hauled onto the boat and the killer-mob is talked down from killing him. But then Htichcock always did have a broader view of humanity -- and "villains."

But yeah, I get your point. And its worse than that. The two young men save the pilot from a horrible death -- and....

You know, even QT took this up in the early scene in Inglorious Basterds where a proud, loyal Nazi officer(of some regal bearing) refuses to give up information and submits to death by baseball bat by Pitt's rather psycho Jewish soldier("The Bear Jew.") On the other hand, before dying, the Nazi snaps about Pitt's "Jew Dogs" and ....the requisite "he deserves it" villainy emerges.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

As 2019 becomes 2020, I've been watching my DVD of OATIH a lot

I should give OUATIH another try I suppose.

As of now, I'm a big Parasite fan. I've seen it three times, read through parts of its screenplay, participated in on-line discussions, e.g., here:
https://moviechat.org/tt6751668/Parasite/5e25cfda331ba6098b954cf6/What-was-the-sons-intention-with-the-stone-when-going-down-to-the-basement

Parasite is, I think, a near perfect construction. Not a second or a shot or a line wasted, it's full of great dialogue, interesting ideas (e.g., its hilarious but also painful for Koreans how the Kims' scam depends at various points on American credentials and American tech, and that this feeds into why the most 'American' of the Kims 'Jessica' narratively *has* to die!), incredible set-pieces & sets. Parasite with its forlornness & bitter social satire & its smarts & craft delivered in a ridiculously entertaining package reminds me a lot of the great cynical American movies from (mostly) the '50s, All About Eve, Face in The Crowd, Ace in The Hole, Sweet Smell of Success, The Apartment, & so on. In my view, Parasite is about as good as any of those, including two of the best Best Pictures of all time. It would be very typical of the Oscars to award a self-serious picture like 1917 over it or to prefer to award old lions like QT & Scorsese on career grounds for objectively-not-their-best work.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I should give OUATIH another try I suppose.

--

I don't think it would necessarily work any better for you. Nor do I think it should. Your preferance for Parasite and my preference for OAITH reflect different people, personalites...all good human values. Though I think the films have much in common -- the final explosion of violence at the end, and even the "class warfare" which isn't warfare at all in OAITH, but its there: even fading TV star Rick Dalton's house is a fair sight better place to live than Brad's dumpy trailer(we realize that even if Rick is paying Cliff..he's not able to pay him very much.) And yet Cliff is presented for the entire film as "content with his lot in life." He's poor. He's a gofer. But he's comfortable in his own skin. And he has two great friends: Rick, and his dog.

---

To the extent it HAS grown on me, this is largely because I've watched it so many times now that many of its parts "fit" in a way I didn't see the first or second time I saw it, and because I understand it better now and -- importantly -- because this is yet another favorite movie that speaks to me PERSONALLY, in a way that no other QT film has.

In fact, I gotta do this here(because "where else?") It turns out that just like "my Psycho isn't your Psycho" --
"My Once Upon a Time in Hollywood isn't your Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" because -- QT's damn movie turns out to have recovered a whole trove of my "LA memories" from the 60's AND the 70's.

To wit: the first two acts of the film take place in February of 1969 in Los Angeles; and that's only one year after the February 1968 showing of Psycho on LA TV(following that November 1967 showing) and hey: OAITH captures the look, sound and FEELING of those years when Psycho was such a bit deal in that particular city and my life.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And not just the "Psycho LA 1968" vibe. There's a guick shot of the front of Rolls Royce driving(we can assume it is Al Pacino's car) and we hear a pitch for a movie starring Virna Lisi that will be getting its "Loa Angeles Television Premiere" on KHJ 9 that Friday. I remember that KHJ-TV announcer's voice, and I remember his FACE: he doubled as a "spaceman" TV show host for kids in those years.

Here's the deal: "KHJ" were call letters for the coolest rock radio channel("93 K ..H..J!!") and QT captures all that old sound and "KHJ" were call letters for a TV channel in LA that showed a lot of old movies("The weeklong Million Dollar Movie"; "Strange Tales of Science Fiction") and QT has sound snippets from BOTH KHJs. That's insider nostalgia, but damn its sweet, and I really didn't notice how wall-to-wall it was the first time I saw/heard OAITH.

In short, as hip and sunny and fun as LA was to live in back then, it was also cool to LISTEN to(on the radio) and to watch(on the TV.) Psycho, too, was heralded as getting its "Los Angeles Televsion Premiere" in 1967/68, and that made it all the more exciting.

The film hooks up with my favorite movie of 1973 -- American Graffiti -- in that echo-y, wall-to-wall radio background. It was Wolfman Jack in American Graffiti...in OAITH, its the very real "KHJ experience." (I'll add that there was one more cool radio station back then -- KRLA, but it didn't have a TV station, too.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Some stray enjoyments:

In its first act, QAITH gives us "Saturday Night" for its three key players: Brad has a great "night drive" across LA(a drive I TOOK many times over the years) that brings him to a drive-in theater(great memories) and to his crummy trailer, but...he looks quite at home there, with his faithful dog, his mac and cheese, and Mannix on the TV screen. But he's alone. A handsome stud like Brad Pitt? Well, that wife murder thing seems to have dampened his chick magnet abilities.

Meanwhile, Leo is learning his lines for Lancer the next day by talking back to his own voice on a tape. Having seen OAITH a few times now, I saw/heard how everything that Leo says to the tape recorder(while floating in his pool, natch, at night) is exactly what he says(and screws up) the next day on the set. But Rick Dalton, too, is all alone on a Saturday night', a fading TV actor working on the weekend.

Which brings us to the Saturday Night of Sharon Tate. She's hot enough in movies herself(Valley of the Dolls) and her director hubby is indeed hot too(Rosemary's Baby) so SHE gets to go to the Playboy mansion and hang out with McQueen and the Mamas and the Papas. But what I like is this: that Playboy Mansion party looks a lot less relaxing than what Rick and Cliff are doing that Saturday Night, a lot more shallow, a lot less "human." QAITH takes a risk and presents Sharon Tate as an "airhead girl who just likes to dance" -- she's always affecting dance moves even as she walks -- she's pretty silly, pretty shallow, her Hollywood life looks brain dead. And yet...her horrible murder made her immortal. Rick Dalton aspires to enter this shallow top tier world of Hollywood; Cliff Booth could hardly be bothered: his dog, mac and cheese, a brew("Old Chatanooga"), Mannix..that's enough.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Other stray thoughts:

The OAITH DVD adds enjoyment that to the film itself. We only see a snippet of Rick Dalton singing and dancing on "Hullaballoo" in the movie proper (to "Behind the Green Door") but the DVD extras give us the ENTIRE number and its a joyous hoot. I'm always having debates with friends about how good an actor Leo really is(they think he's "got something," I don't, quite) but he sure is good in this clip...the (again) silliness of his facial expressions (precise as they are) give pleasure as do the very sexy three female dancers who execute just about every dance move of the 60's as Leo sings.

The "red apple cigarettes" commercial on the extras is voiced by Kurt Russell(my beloved star of "Used Cars") and as with his narration of the doom-filled final minutes of OAITH...he's just cool to listen to. I have memorized the Red Apple pitch:

"Take a bite...take a bite and feel alright. Take a bite of..a red apple."

And so forth and so on. With its 60's KHJ ambiance(and scenes over at Westwood Village near UCLA where I spent the 70's), OAITH is a personal gift from QT. I relate to this world far more than to Nazi Germany or the pre-Civil War South or the post-Civil War West. That said, the nostalgia factor of OATIH cannot raise it higher than QT's first trilogy in my estimation. Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction/Jackie Brown are better.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Oh, one more:

I'm not a big fan of the main sequence of Sharon Tate watching herself at the Bruin Westwood theater in The Wrecking Crew -- but I like the BEGINNING:

She's driving in Westwood (again on streets I drove many times) and a bittersweet song about the passage of time("The Circle Game") is on the radio and its sad. But the version being sung isn't the great Joni Mitchell version, its a version by Buffy Sainte Marie, a folk singer with a very overdone "vibrato trill" who sounds rather ridiculous today. Tate picks up a hippie girl hitchhiker(a precursor to the "bad" Manson versions) and picks up a copy of "Tess of the D'Urbanelles" for her husband(who DID make a movie of it after her death.) Clu Gulager sells her the book

(And hey: anybody notice that Roman's dog in OAITH is named "Saperstein"? That's Ralph Bellamy's evil obstetrician in Rosemary's Baby.)

Then: the great PART of the Bruin sequence. Sharon approaches a perfectly cast ticket seller girl(deadpan, not too pretty, attitude) and we get this exchange:

Sharon: One, please.
Ticket Girl: 75 cents.
Sharon: (A beat) What if I'm IN the movie?
Ticket Girl: (Nonplussed) Whaddya mean?

Those few words, from those two actresses, are hilarious. Margot Robbie here gets her longest stretch of dialogue in the movie, and her Sharon Tate voice and manner are WEIRD. Super-innocent, not very bright, but very. very sweet. Then comes this exchange between Tate and the courtly Hispanic theater manager and the ticket seller:

Ticket seller: This is the girl who was in Valley of the Dolls.
Manager: Patty Duke?
Tate: No.
Manager: The one from Peyton Place?
Tate: No. (Pause ,conspiratorial) I'm the one who ends up in ...DIRTY MOVIES.

I've watched this scene a few times now and I think it is so good...the choice of actors, the choices about Sharon Tate's voice and manner, the humor of it...the sweetness of it.

Like many other scenes in OAITH, it took me a few viewings to really GET it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

As of now, I'm a big Parasite fan. I've seen it three times,

--

Aha. Hitchcock said all movies should be seen three times...and I think Andrew Sarris elaborated on this:

ONCE just to "see the story and experience it first time."
TWICE: To see how everything fits together.
THRICE: To enjoy while understanding it.

--

read through parts of its screenplay,

---

A screenplay is always a helpful document if you can get it. Its the movie...except it isn't(the Psycho screenplay conveys entirely other people than the ones in the movie.)

--

participated in on-line discussions, e.g., here:
https://moviechat.org/tt6751668/Parasite/5e25cfda331ba6098b954cf6/What-was-the-sons-intention-with-the-stone-when-going-down-to-the-basement

--

Dare I venture out of my Psycho comfort zone?

I'll certainly READ the threads.

---

Parasite is, I think, a near perfect construction. Not a second or a shot or a line wasted

--

I sense that. Hey, this one might "grow" on me like OAITH did.

--

, it's full of great dialogue, interesting ideas (e.g., its hilarious but also painful for Koreans how the Kims' scam depends at various points on American credentials and American tech, and that this feeds into why the most 'American' of the Kims 'Jessica' narratively *has* to die!),

---

THAT's an interesting point. Yes, it was interesting to see the role of America in the story -- with Min going off to America at the beginning and really setting everything into motion.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

incredible set-pieces & sets.

--

There's an article on the internet with the art director of Parasite, who designed that house with its multi-levels and hidden places. He discusses the difference between building a house to really live in versus building a house to make a movie in.

BTW, the terrible placement of the toilet in the Kim's poverty row home was disturbing to me. High above them with too low a celiing over it, and too near the eating area.

---

Parasite with its forlornness & bitter social satire & its smarts & craft delivered in a ridiculously entertaining package reminds me a lot of the great cynical American movies from (mostly) the '50s, All About Eve, Face in The Crowd, Ace in The Hole, Sweet Smell of Success, The Apartment, & so on.

---

Yeah...whatever happened to cynicism in American movies? I love it in real life. I HAVE it in real life.

---

In my view, Parasite is about as good as any of those, including two of the best Best Pictures of all time.

---

Er, from your list above, that would have to be ...All About Eve and The Apartment?

Those are two of my favorites to be sure -- The Apartment is my favorite Wilder -- even as I liked other movies a bit better each year: Sunset Boulevard and Psycho. We should all have such great second choices!

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

It would be very typical of the Oscars to award a self-serious picture like 1917 over it or to prefer to award old lions like QT & Scorsese on career grounds for objectively-not-their-best work.

--

We shall see. If I'm beginning to think that QT might get Picture this time, it is because he says he only has one left(and this one is plenty good right now) and this one doesn't have anything quite as ugly as the Mandingo fight scene in Django or Sam Jackson's speech(with "pictures") about what he did to Bruce Dern's son in the snow, in Hateful Eight. For most of OAITH, QT is on his best behavior, and even the gory end is joyously, hilariously so(the placement of the "comedy relief Italian bombshell actress" with her slapstick comedy body movements.) Its also, of course, a movie about Hollywood, and while we are told that those DON'T win Oscars(see: Sunset Boulevard) some movies about movies DO(The Artist, Shakespeare in Love, in its different way.)

1917 would be honoring something "British and prestige" but it is getting SOME backlash about its ignoring the politics of WWI and playing too much like a video game.

Parasite would be an "international win" and the Academy seems to be liking that these days.

In fact, I was at the movies yesterday("The Gentlemen") and I noticed that the trailers are now not from "MPAA" but from "MPA" -- its no longer "Motion Picture Association of America."

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

BTW, the terrible placement of the toilet in the Kim's poverty row home was disturbing to me. High above them with too low a ceiling over it, and too near the eating area.

Yes! It's *horrifying*. Presumably that would never actually be up-to-code any more than Being John Malkovich (1999)'s half-storey office would be. Great idea-driven production design tho'.

"whatever happened to cynicism in American movies?"

Oh I think it's around: Hateful 8 & Wolf of Wall St were pretty darned cynical, ditto I Tonya, even The Big Short. But maybe real-life in the US is too divided & actually cynical right now about the status quo to be the best home for creative cynicism.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

BTW, the terrible placement of the toilet in the Kim's poverty row home was disturbing to me. High above them with too low a ceiling over it, and too near the eating area.
Yes! It's *horrifying*. Presumably that would never actually be up-to-code any more than Being John Malkovich (1999)'s half-storey office would be. Great idea-driven production design tho'.

---

Yes -- though as I recall the BJM architecture, that flat-out didn't look LIVEABLE. Here we have a toilet that seems workable, but is positioned almost as an insult to the family -- and if memory serves, no door, no curtain, no privacy.

This toilet presages the big "sewage explosion and flood" near the end of the film that consumes the Kim's poor neighborhood, which in turn ties into the issue of "smell" in the film -- the idea that one mark against the Kim family is that...they bring a certain smell with them. The rich kid nails a DIFFERENT kind of smell(not sewage) early in the film -- and it "reveals"to the rich family(who don't act on this) that the three family members ARE connected. After the sewage incident, smell factors into the climactic bloodbath, too.

Smell. Not a particularly enjoyable dramatic element...but a powerful one.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"whatever happened to cynicism in American movies?"

Oh I think it's around: Hateful 8 & Wolf of Wall St were pretty darned cynical,

---

Hey, my favorite movies of 2015 and 2013, respectably. Guess that says something about me -- though both films were very entertaining and "movie-ish" as a cinematic matter, too.

--

ditto I Tonya, even The Big Short.

---

Yes. Didn't quite hit the same heights for me. (The Big Short is sublimated to the superb Margin Call and also to WOWS.)

And is Allison Janey the only actress to win an Oscar for essentially playing a slightly worse version of her current TV sitcom role?(Mom.)

---

--

But maybe real-life in the US is too divided & actually cynical right now about the status quo to be the best home for creative cynicism.

---

Well, politics and especially the "news channels" have basically reached a point of such parody that a true cynic can only applaud: its as if capitalism has driven political/governmental "news" to the point where it doesn't really exist anymore. News today is entertainment that can only be driven by one side or the other; I don't think "Fake News" quite fits: its "one point of view news" -- were any reporter to depart from the company line, they would be fired. Their job is to drive ratings -- pandering to "the base" -- nothing more. Meanwhile, the "cynic party" grows in number every day.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

A nice interview with Parasite-director Bong Joon-Ho:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2020/jan/31/parasite-director-bong-joon-ho-korea-seems-glamorous-but-the-young-are-in-despair
He claims to have watched Psycho 50 times!

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

He claims to have watched Psycho 50 times!

---

Hasn't everybody? Ha.

Well, I know that William Friedkin said he saw Psycho 50, maybe 100 times and that that prepared him to do The Exorcist(he sure seemed to miss some lessons from Psycho for that one; Spielberg LEARNED them for Jaws.)

Various other films have "100 times viewers"; The Sound of Music and Titanic for two(people have said in interviews.) But I think Psycho is a special case. There is something about the film's tight, "pure" construction, narrative purity(the woman gets killed, the detective gets killed, the killer gets caught) that teaches how to organize script AND visuals AND music into an ultra-satisfying whole.

Someone wrote that "every movie made after Psycho has a bit of Psycho in it," and Parasite is no exception. Bloody killings at the end, sure. But also the way that it starts one way and then rather takes a strong turn into a different kind of movie about halfway. Also, the mix of comedy and horror (how one character gets knocked down the stairs is a mix of comedy, dark visuals and horror.) Psycho and Parasite are also films where the architecture of TWO structures is important(motel/house; poor home/rich home). And certainly Psycho and Parasite share an emphasis on toilets and waste matter.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

The director says that he is "neutral" on the class issues in Parasite. An interesting statement and one that I think rather haunts the movie. Here's a question: should rich people have servants -- and tutors for their children -- at all? On the one hand, as the movie points out, the suggestion is that the rich ones can't prepare their own meals, drive their own cars, teach their own kids at home and thus are "parasites" on the poorer people who perform these chores. But on the other hand, it is a given that , in some societies, the people who take the servant jobs want them and value them(but may very well be resentful about them, day after day.) Perhaps the resentments are mutual: the rich don't like having the poor around serving them(creates guilt); the poor don't like having to wait on the rich(creates envy.) Mutual parasites. Shall we remain...neutral?

Oscar is about a week away, and hey, this year I have a dog in the fight: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, which has managed to grow so much on me over multiple viewings(DVD extras included) since July that I am actually rooting for it. I think it actually has a chance of winning. I think QT knows that, too. The corollary is Scorsese and his all-star "Departed."

Parasite seems to have run up and around such earlier competitors as The Irishman and 1917 to have the other shot. The director made a rather troublesome comment that he finds the Oscars to be "a local event, not international" -- that's the first shot across the bow I've heard in some decades that the Oscars are now as "regional" as American studio films and audiences in an international marketplace. I wonder if the director has accidentally killed his chances with that one remark(if it gets circulated.)

I will be satisfied if either OAITH or Parasite wins Best Picture, they are both "event pictures" that are being widely seen and that matter. This was not true for numerous other winners of the past decade.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

About those DVD extras on the OAITH DVD:

I've sort of grown to enjoy the weirdest and somewhat worst extra: an extended and improvised conversation between Leo's Rick Dalton(in his Lancer bad guy wig, fake moustache and cowboy hat) and the fatuous director played by Nicholas Hammond. I thought Hammond was a massively irritating character in the movie, but somehow he comes through in this five minute improv and one GETS HIM: he really DOES see Rick Dalton as a great actor for whom TV Westerns should be beneath him.

Anyway, Hammond keeps peppering Rick with overblown flattery and fake profundity -- and Rick just sort of humors him.

There's a great moment when Hammond has this exchange with Leo:

Hammond: There's a movie I'm about to make called The Executioner. And I think there's a great part in it for you. Not the lead, unfortunately. That's already gone to George Peppard.
Leo: Story of my life!

I like how Leo, in "character" as Rick Dalton , understands who the real George Peppard was and how Peppard would keep getting roles Rick wanted(even moreso than the bigger Steve McQueen.) In real life, in 1969, George Peppard was just about finished as a movie star; by 1971 he would be on NBC's Mystery Movie "wheel"(alongside Columbo and McCloud) as detective "Banacek"(gimmick: he finds lost things, from NFL players to armored cars that disappear.) Rick Dalton wouldn't be a big enough star to even merit a slot on the mystery movie. Generally , movie guys like Peppard, Falk, Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis and Richard Boone got those leads. Dennis Weaver somehow lucked out.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I also realize, after seeing OAITH a few times, that the wig and Fu Manchu moustache that Rick Dalton resists at first("How are they goin' to know its me with all that JUNK on my face?") really do wonders for Leo's baby face. The "get-up" makes sure that Leo is almost as macho and sexy-looking as his genetically gifted co-star Brad Pitt. And when Dalton really ACTS in that get up (in his powerful final Lancer scene with the girl), Leo is on all cylinders: he looks good, he sounds good, he acts good.

But not Oscar good. Not this year. Its Brad's year.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

Every year The Hollywood Reporter invites a few Academy Members to share & discuss the reasoning behind their (anonymized) ballots. Here are a couple for this year (with lots of love for OUATIH):

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/brutally-honest-oscar-ballot-irishman-was-boring-tarantino-amazing-1275576

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/lists/brutally-honest-oscar-ballot-1917-gimmicky-renee-zellweger-nailed-it-1276607/item/best-picture-2020-brutally-honest-ballot-2-1276632

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Here are a couple for this year (with lots of love for OUATIH):

--

Well, here it is: an Oscar year in which I have a rooting interest, for the first time in a long time.

Alas, voters like that seem to usually "misdirect" us with their anonymous preferences. I've read a few of these over the years where the "one mystery voter"(here, two, a man and a woman) offer their choices and the Academy goes the other way. For instance, in 1997, I read a few such articles where "LA Confidential" had the Best Picture edge - but Titanic pulled it off(move LA Confidential to 1996 against The English Patient, I think it would have won.)

That said, its indeed nice to see the love for OAITH...and I think maybe its production design could be a winner, too. (Thus far, I'm only betting on Pitt and Original Screenplay for sure.)

Speaking of misdirection, QT has certainly made movies in recent years that were too ultraviolent to be considered for Best Picture -- Kill Bill, Death Proof, and The Hateful Eight come to mind -- but on the other hand, each of his last three movies has WON at least one Oscar, and two in one case:

Inglorious Basterds(Chris Waltz, Supporting)

Django Unchained(Chris Waltz, Supporting AND Best Original Screenplay)

The Hateful Eight(Morricone, Best Score)

...the Morricone was perhaps a "gimme," but the rest were QT's helpful doing(writing lines for Waltz and one winning screenplay -- plus an Oscar win for Pulp Fiction's script years earlier.

Given how few Oscars are actually given out each year -- and how important Supporting Actor, Original Screenplay, and Score are -- QT's really something weird: A "radical indie violence monger" who is also "Oscar bait."

And so...we shall see: OAITH for Best Picture? Its odds are good.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Sidebar: Poor Leo DiCaprio. Nominated for Best Actor as Rick Dalton, fading TV star but...no wins. Has to bask in Pitt's wins. Of course, Leo won for his grueling physical work in The Revanant(THAT's Oscar bait) and yet...Rick Dalton is quite a creation, with his Southern twang(though he's from Missouri), his stammer, his shift between scared rabbit collapse(hence Brad's great support as his best bro) and confident ACTOR. If Leo hadn't won already, Rick Dalton might have been the one.

Meanwhile: Can it be? The Joker wins one actor the Best Supporting Actor award and other the Best Actor award? I guess Vito Corleone did the same for Brando and DeNiro..but still. AND: Jack Nicholson's still my favorite. A bit too rotund, but he was a "prestige superstar" finally jumping into the Summer Blockbuster genre with both feet and a superstar's history. He didn't even get a nomination --- and I rememember that bugging me. (A $60 million dollar payday in 1989 and a rejuvenated career with younger folk was fine consolation.)

I rather lost in the shuffle the idea that Renee Zellwegger seems to have Best Actress nailed for Judy Garland. Its a "two-fer" victory for Renee: she's an Oscar winning(Supporting) big star who plummeted fast into obscurity. But she's back. She will be given the "comeback award" plus see also: I Walk the Line and Ray, among others.

And Laura Dern with a "two fer" -- Marriage Story AND Little Women . She'll win for Marriage. I guess she dropped by the OAITH table to chat with dad Bruce Dern(the megastar of "Family Plot," heh) at the Golden Globes. Great how Bruce is now this big deal. I like it.

[–] swanstep (2715) 5 years ago

And Parasite got the big awards.... Picture, Director, Original Screenplay (as well as International Film).

3-fer: 1917 got VFX, Cinematography & one of the sound awards - at the very low ed of predictions.
2-fers: OUATIH got Pitt's Supporting Actor & Production Design; Joker got Score & Phoenix's Actor; Ford v. Ferrari got Editing & the other sound award
1-fers: Little Women got Costume; Jojo Rabbit got Adapted Screenplay, Marriage Story got Laura Dern's Supporting Actor; Judy got Zellweger's Actress; Bombshell got Hair&Makeup.

The Irishman, unless I've missed something, was shut out.

QT was pretty grim-faced at Bong's director award... until Bong nicely credited a lot of his inspiration & career to Scorsese & QT respectively. I can confirm that *I* was one of the people who first heard about Bong through QT's 'best of year' lists back in 2004 & 2006 IIRC. Bong pays his debts.

Notwithstanding who it might have left out (Luke Perry was a particularly stupid omission given that he was in OUATIH), the In Memoriam was pretty good this year: up-to-date enough to include Kirk Douglas, including clips again for major figures, graphics were a good size, good but undistracting musical accompaniment, some audience reaction sound allowed. 8/10 (recent years have been 5's at best). Robert Evans was rushed through...

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And Parasite got the big awards.... Picture, Director, Original Screenplay (as well as International Film).

---

Yes...its season long love paid off. I found the wins rather "inevitable" and the idea that it gets both Best Picture and Best International Film seemed like a bit of overkill but...eh, its the Oscars.

Of course, I personally enjoyed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood better, but it occurred to me when this was all over that QT is likely going to go the way of Hitchcock, Don Siegel(Dirty Harry), Sam Peckinpah(whose "Wild Bunch" only got two nominations and lost both); and DePalma and always will be considered a "genre man" and therefore not worthy of Oscar's biggest awards in his category -- Picture and Director.

That said, each of QT's last four films (all of which came after the grindhouse gore of Kill Bill and Death Proof) have managed to win at least one Oscar, and sometimes two. So QT HAS made the grade of the kind of filmmaker who pretty much will always be NOMINATED at the Oscars and sometimes win. He is in the club. Until he makes another Death Proof.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

3-fer: 1917 got VFX, Cinematography & one of the sound awards - at the very low ed of predictions.

---

It would seem that 1917 ended up as the "technical awards winner" that always used to go to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings etc. (Until LOTR finally got a final Best Picture.)

---

2-fers: OUATIH got Pitt's Supporting Actor & Production Design; Joker got Score & Phoenix's Actor; Ford v. Ferrari got Editing & the other sound award

---

Ford versus Ferrari seems to be the "sleeper" of 2019: good reviews, good box office, some Oscar love.

I still think Joker was, on balance, a bad movie and weak copy of better works(Taxi Driver, other Joker movies), but...it seems to have connected. And Joaquin Phoenix joins Matthew McConaghey in the kind of Oscar speech that suggests the winner "has some personal issues." A reminder that a lot of our good-to-great actors are not "regular people." And to think: Joaquin Phoenix almost played Norman Bates for Gus Van Sant.

---

1-fers: Little Women got Costume; Jojo Rabbit got Adapted Screenplay, Marriage Story got Laura Dern's Supporting Actor; Judy got Zellweger's Actress; Bombshell got Hair&Makeup.

---

All of which were movies "on the radar" of both the movie authorities and, in some cases, swanstep, YOUR radar. Good work finding them for us.

---

The Irishman, unless I've missed something, was shut out.

--

Well, it allowed Scorsese to attend the ceremony and bask in adulation for his past work, but we are reminded that something wasn't so great about THIS work. In the end, it will be the Pacino and Pesci peformances for which The Irishman will be remembered (and, says I, Ray Romano holding up his humorous end) but this one isn't at the level of GoodFellas, Casino, The Departed, or The Wolf of Wall Street(let alone the more arty and high falutin' Taxi Driver and Raging Bull.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

QT was pretty grim-faced at Bong's director award... until Bong nicely credited a lot of his inspiration & career to Scorsese & QT respectively. I can confirm that *I* was one of the people who first heard about Bong through QT's 'best of year' lists back in 2004 & 2006 IIRC. Bong pays his debts.

--

All good...but I wonder if QT felt some sort of dark irony: "I didn't know when I kept praising this Bong guy that I'd end up competing against him and losing against him at the Oscars."

Meanwhile: Scorsese's OK with all the adulation, he GOT his Best Picture/Best Director Oscar...for a movie (The Departed) that some say was not really top level Scorsese.(Ah, it was good enough.) Does QT have a chance for such solace? Only one more movie left to make, he says.

---

Notwithstanding who it might have left out (Luke Perry was a particularly stupid omission given that he was in OUATIH), the In Memoriam was pretty good this year: up-to-date enough to include Kirk Douglas, including clips again for major figures, graphics were a good size, good but undistracting musical accompaniment, some audience reaction sound allowed. 8/10 (recent years have been 5's at best). Robert Evans was rushed through.

---

Its not the politics of the Oscars that bugs me so much as its efforts to "take the show biz out of show business" by not allowing the biggest applause to be heard during the In Memoriams. (A "political" decision in that no one artist is allowed to be honored more than another.) Yes, I DID hear some big applause this time, and yes, it was gratifying. That's the nature of the "curtain call" on stage...you save the big applause for the star at the end. Kirk Douglas and Doris Day WERE the two big ones lost in the past year(could someone bigger than Kirk go in the rest of 2020?) Kirk got the final shot.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I would expect that you are pleased with Parasite taking top honors, swanstep. So I want to honor that. I liked it, not loved it, and I will see it again to further try to understand "what it is trying to say." For me, I thought that the poor family in the film were pretty much villains at the front end, and the rich family were villains at the back end, so, like I say "a pox on everybody's house" seems to be the message.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

And this:

I went into the Oscars suggesting that only Brad Pitt and QT's original screenplay were "locks."

Bottom line: I forgot that Parasite was also nominated in the (usually not very competitive) Best Original Screenplay category. Had I remembered, I never would have suggested that QT had a lock on Best Original Screenplay(despite his win at the Golden Globes) and I would suggest Parasite as a possible winner for Best Original Screenplay.

And Parasite DID win Best Original Screenplay. But I think QT's screenplay was better -- better dialogue, better overall emotion -- but...eh, the Oscars. What are you gonna do?

Perhaps if voting hadn't started yet, QT put some off with the "legitmate arrogance" of his speech when he won Best Original Screenplay at the Golden Globes:

"There's no one I can thank on this. I did it myself." True -- especially with an ORIGINAL screenplay, not from a book or play...