- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Another 12 years a slave thread...
Posted on 4/27/14 at 10:06 pm to VOR
Posted on 4/27/14 at 10:06 pm to VOR
quote:
I'm sure they all look alike to you.
No, they don't, but thanks for stereotyping.
quote:
She's actually a pretty
young woman.
If you like women who look like Christopher Walken's henchwoman in "A view to Kill"
0
Posted on 4/27/14 at 10:10 pm to VOR
quote:otherwise, you're just calling her young.
She's actually a pretty, young woman.
Posted on 4/27/14 at 11:55 pm to Hoodoo Man
Well if time on screen is part of the requirements you would have to take away Anthony Hopkins for Silence of the Lambs. I think he only had 16 minutes of screen time in the entire movie?
Posted on 4/28/14 at 12:01 am to LSUJuicer
quote:
Well if time on screen is part of the requirements you would have to take away Anthony Hopkins for Silence of the Lambs. I think he only had 16 minutes of screen time in the entire movie?
Screen time most definitely doesn't matter. But don't compare Lupita Nyong'o's performance to what Anthony Hopkins pulled off in The Silence of the Lambs. Her performance, by Oscar standards, was unremarkable. The subject matter of the film, her main competition being last year's winner for Best Actress, and the overall weak competition in the category itself were the only reasons she even won.
That's not to say 12 Years a Slave wasn't a good film. It's a great film. But Lupita Nyong'o's performance was most definitely not Oscar worthy IMO. If anyone from that cast should have won the Oscar, it should have been Michael Fassbender.
This post was edited on 4/28/14 at 12:03 am
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:35 am to RollTide1987
I agree he was the best performance however, he was not winning it this year. Only one man really had a chance to win it this year. Secondly, the supporting actress category was rather weak this year. Yeah Jennifer Lawrence won last year does not make her a lock this year. She too is pretty young. Plus American Hustle was really being called overrated after the nominations came out.
This was the kind of role that wins oscars though. Usually if someone does a degrading role you shoot to the top if it is a film getting attention. Good example is Halle Berry. Monsters Ball she was great in most of it. But I remember a key scene where her character was not convincing at all. In fact during this scene the acting was horrible and I remember thinking that while watching it. But it was not a glamourous role either, just like the role in Monster wasn't and playing a slave isn't. These roles get noticed more. Out of the ones she went against, she was the best. I am more tired of the fact they have so many best pictures. If only three movies were worthy of best picture than only nominate three. The rest is a waste of time to consider.
This was the kind of role that wins oscars though. Usually if someone does a degrading role you shoot to the top if it is a film getting attention. Good example is Halle Berry. Monsters Ball she was great in most of it. But I remember a key scene where her character was not convincing at all. In fact during this scene the acting was horrible and I remember thinking that while watching it. But it was not a glamourous role either, just like the role in Monster wasn't and playing a slave isn't. These roles get noticed more. Out of the ones she went against, she was the best. I am more tired of the fact they have so many best pictures. If only three movies were worthy of best picture than only nominate three. The rest is a waste of time to consider.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 10:55 pm to fr33manator
quote:
and that there were better books out there on the subject matter (although these don't have as compelling a story and are more an amalgam of the multitudes of experiences in the antebellum south.)
You've read a whole lot of autobiographical works from former slaves? Hell, I cant even think of another one. Up From Slavery doesn't fit the bill, nor do any of Frederick Douglas' writings, as he was more of a polemicist. That's a bizarre criticism.
What made the movie great? Well, it's on a subject that honestly hasn't been mined for material all that much. There's very few fictional works about American slavery from the slave's point of view. Roots is the best known, and even that moves past slavery for the second half of the series. Movies like Django Unchained are as much about slavery as Inglorious Basterds was about WWII, which is to say, not really at all. Even movies like Mandingo are clearly an alternate, fictional reality. A film like Lincoln, while about outlawing slavery, is not about slavery, nor does it spend much time depicting it. Probably the most praised film on the subject, Amistad, is really a courtroom drama.
But what makes the movie great is its use of music, sound, and in particular, silence. There's not a word spoken for the first several minutes, and its quite effective. The hanging scene is also entirely wordless, or at least the aftermath is, and the camera lingers on in silence, with only the chirping of cicadas as the score.
Beautiful camera work and cinematography, but really, this movie was a masterwork in sound.
Posted on 4/28/14 at 11:37 pm to Baloo
It was hard to watch. One of my fav parts was the singing when he finally joins in. Just hard to take in. It's not about what is said but isn't. You could get a glimpse of their pain.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News