A Beautiful Mind licked some serious scrot. I can see how some people might like the film, but I hated it and cannot see how that film could even be considered Best Picture material considering its opposition which incldued the Fellowship, Mulholland Drive and quite a few other good, or at least better, films.

I thought the movie was really boring. I honestly hardly paid attention. I don't know what it was, but the characters were so dark and slow. Although I thought it was shot well. I liked all the different places they chose to shoot the film.

There may be a more specific, developed way to say it, but there's nothing wrong with the "didn't get it" argument other than that it's too general.

I've literally heard several people say over Mulholland Dr.: "I don't get it. I thought that was supposed to be good?!"

I've heard similar things said about other David Lynch films, as well as The Thin Red Line and a host of others. Some people just aren't attentive or thoughtful enough (or just don't value that kind of mind) to follow non-linear constructions, or if they can follow on the surface, they're not perceptive enough (or, again, just don't let themselves be) to see the subtexts and try to figure out what's going on for themselves.

To like David Lynch, you have to be willing to take a walk on the wild side. That alone is enough to get your foot in the door, even if you still don't quite "get it"...I was pretty young when I saw Blue Velvet the first time, and though I had little idea what was going on I was fascinated by it.

I'm not saying I completely understand everything about these kinds of movies, but have learned that even if my initial reaction is "I don't get it" I can still find that fascination that motivates me to *try* to get it...but your typical movie-goer often isn't like that.

I think that in a small way the Academy likes Russell Crowe, because well, he is a fine actor. I think his best acting performance is his most easily forgotten and overlooked in The Insider--he truly went toe to toe with Al Pacino on acting there. I heard somewhere that A Beautiful Mind almost got Jim Carrey to play the lead. When I first heard this I immediately thought, "Well now, that, would have worked perfectly."

I don't know, I also feel that it is a "safe" pick but there have been plenty of "safe" picks by the Academy in many years; either way you can't say that Russell Crowe brought that film down, if anything, he propelled it. I do feel, however, that both Memento and Le Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain are superior films.

quote:

---

Written by Vykromond
I think in the case of Mulholland Drive it's a completely fair statement. Most people actually don't get it and just assume it's random gibberish, which would certainly make me dislike a movie. (Lost in Translation, as we're discussing in another thread, is a different story.)

EDIT: Of course, it can be argued that it is a failure of the movie that not many people get it. I wouldn't say so, but it's a sensible opinion.

---

However, keep in mind that Albert was referring to the "Academy Voters" when he claimed that they "didn't get it". If anyone was to understand the film Mulholland Dr. then it would surely be the "Academy Voters". I hope you see what I'm saying. To say that the most qualified viewers don't "get it", implies that absolutely no one gets it and thus contradicts his own understanding of the film.

But anyway, you have to admit that the "didn't get it" argument is both over-used and almost equivalent to denial in some respects. It really is just a grand assumption about everyone else.

quote:

---

Written by Vykromond
Actually, it's sort of the other way around for me. I can think of how much I enjoyed Fellowship, and the insane relief at the fact that it didn't let the book down (like every other book adaptation, ever?), and the exhilaration of the whole enterprise- but then I think of the first time I saw Mulholland Drive and just keeled over in a state of shocked amazement.

---

Well, it's a good thing I never read the books then isn't it? And also, a film cannot be judged by how much it lives up to a book. A film has to be seen as a separate entity. Though it may be based on a written story, you can't watch a movie just to make sure it follows the story to every last detail. That's just an aweful cinematic experience.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:

quote:

---

Written by Albert
I agree completely. The fact that it won best picture just goes to show how few great films there have been since about 1999, in my humble opinion. I'm sure that most of the Academy voters just didn't "get" Mulholland Drive.

---

Ok enough with the "didn't get it" crap. Everytime I read or hear that phrase I shit myself. Please try to come up with some other explanation for a film's failures.

---

I think in the case of Mulholland Drive it's a completely fair statement. Most people actually don't get it and just assume it's random gibberish, which would certainly make me dislike a movie. (Lost in Translation, as we're discussing in another thread, is a different story.)

EDIT: Of course, it can be argued that it is a failure of the movie that not many people get it. I wouldn't say so, but it's a sensible opinion.

quote:

---

Mulholland Dr. was great, but not nearly as good as Fellowship. Just try to think back to how you orgasmed in your pants when you saw the Fellowship for the first time. The visuals were groundbreaking, and the concept of a "Fellowship" was so heart-warming.

---

Actually, it's sort of the other way around for me. I can think of how much I enjoyed Fellowship, and the insane relief at the fact that it didn't let the book down (like every other book adaptation, ever?), and the exhilaration of the whole enterprise- but then I think of the first time I saw Mulholland Drive and just keeled over in a state of shocked amazement.

quote:

---

But then again you may have also orgasmed in your pants when you saw Naomi Watts naked.

---

You read me like a book

quote:

---

Written by Albert
I agree completely. The fact that it won best picture just goes to show how few great films there have been since about 1999, in my humble opinion. I'm sure that most of the Academy voters just didn't "get" Mulholland Drive.

---

Ok enough with the "didn't get it" crap. Everytime I read or hear that phrase I shit myself. Please try to come up with some other explanation for a film's failures.

Anyway, I agree that A Beautiful Mind did not deserve Best Picture. If I'm not mistaken, it won during the same year that Fellowship was released, which in my opinion should have won. As for the Best Actor Oscar however, I thought it should have gone to Crowe. I thought his performance was slightly better than Washington's, but hey, that's just me.

Mulholland Dr. was great, but not nearly as good as Fellowship. Just try to think back to how you orgasmed in your pants when you saw the Fellowship for the first time. The visuals were groundbreaking, and the concept of a "Fellowship" was so heart-warming.

But then again you may have also orgasmed in your pants when you saw Naomi Watts naked.

But still, Fellowship is better.

K-Dog

I felt that the first 40 minutes or so of this film were pretty good, but the rest of it was crap. Not even Russell Crowe's best acting job.

What bugs me about A Beautiful Mind is that it was an Oscar movie. A big name producer went out and got a big name director and an Academy Award-winning actor and put them all in a script with a troubled lead character. It was sooo safe. It almost dared the Academy NOT to give it an award.

I suppose. I found it a bit sterile for my taste, though it's beautifully shot and well-directed. It wouldn't be my choice without the presence of LotR, either.

Its funny how different the academy's consensus was to the critics. I think here it scored only like 73, while the Fellowship was well in the 90s.

Master and Commander is a damn good movie. I reckon it would have cleaned up if not for LOTR.

The Academy has a serious Russell Crowe fetish that seems to be at least slightly abating with the failure of Master and Commander at this past year's Oscars (though that might just have been the LOTR effect). I can't stand either Gladiator or A Beautiful Mind; both won over far, far superior movies.

I agree completely. The fact that it won best picture just goes to show how few great films there have been since about 1999, in my humble opinion. I'm sure that most of the Academy voters just didn't "get" Mulholland Drive.