The Oscars

[Alex]

Originally Posted by mousepod

Hear, hear.

And I agree as well.

I didn't walk out of Ray saying "well, that would have been a great movie if only it had been a complete work of fiction." It was a great movie.

Where it begins to be relevant to me is when prompted to make qualitative and comparative evaluations. Forest Whitaker and Peter O'Toole were both fantastic and yet we discuss which was best. When asked to make such a calculation, personally, the fact that O'Toole's character had to be created from whole cloth while Whitaker was, to some degree, simply recreating a real person leads me to devalue his performance in relation to Peter O'Toole's. But the Last King of Scotland remains a remarkable movie in many ways (I pointed out my complaints in the random thread after seeing it).

Perhaps that is why I have this discrepancy between acting "remakes" and Best Picture "remakes" since best picture brings it all together and is about the complete package more than its component parts.

[Not Afraid]

I think it would be more of a challenge as an actor to recreate an IRL character then to create a character from scratch.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I think it would be more of a challenge as an actor to recreate an IRL character then to create a character from scratch.

I don't think so. It brings to mind the recreation of the statue of David that stands outside, where the original David used to stand, in front of the Medici palace. It is a truly remarkable reproduction and took an amount of skill that almost no one in the world could have matched...but the creation of the original remains a more impressive accomplishment.

I wouldn't say that a film being a remake/adaptation means I by default enjoy it less. But in terms of selecting a film to award, remakes start on lower footing in my mind.

Though I think I'm the opposite of Alex in that I cut actors portraying real people more slack than films that have been remade. To me, translating a real personality into a character that plays well on screen is more akin to adapting a book or play than remaking an existing film. So I give that process more credence.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I think it would be more of a challenge as an actor to recreate an IRL character then to create a character from scratch.

Stop reading my mind (and posting first)!!

[CoasterMatt]

So, just how many people associated with Fast Times at Ridgemont High have gone on to win Oscars?

[Alex]

Originally Posted by CoasterMatt

So, just how many people associated with Fast Times at Ridgemont High have gone on to win Oscars?

You can't put a (likely rhetorical) research question in front of me and not get an answer. The Oscar's associated with cast and crew:

Cameron Crowe - Screenplay won Best Original Screenplay for Almost Famous

Sean Penn - Actor - won Best Actor for Mystic River, three other nominations

Forrest Whitaker - Actor - won Best Actor for The Last King of Scotland

Nicolas Cage - Actor - won Best Actor for Leaving Las Vegas, one other nomination

Daneil A. Lomino - Art Direction - nominated Best Art Direction for Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Marilyn Vance - Costume Design - nominated Best Costume Design for The Untouchables

Roger Heman Jr. - Sound Re-recordist - won Best Sound for Jaws, one other nomination

Tom Overton - sound - nominated Best Sound for A Star is Born

[JWBear]

The argument can also be made that successfully and convincingly portraying a well known person (either living or dead) can be a more difficult and challenging job than creating a fictional one.

[Not Afraid]

LOL! I read your first posts and thought IS HE IGNORING ME!!! (Of two minds, sweetie.)

[Alex]

I can see that argument being made, but I don't agree with it. Since it is fundamentally a subjective view that's ok.

I'm more impressed by what O'Toole did than by what Whitaker did (even if the end results were of approximately equal entertainment value). I won't say anybody who feels the opposite is wrong.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I can see that argument being made, but I don't agree with it. Since it is fundamentally a subjective view that's ok.

I'm more impressed by what O'Toole did than by what Whitaker did (even if the end results were of approximately equal entertainment value). I won't say anybody who feels the opposite is wrong.

I haven't seen the movie, but from what I've seen of the clips, Peter O'Toole did play a real person: Peter O'Toole. And Forest Whitaker looks like he did his typical Forest Whitaker, weird-eyed, intensity thing. Meryl Streep did her Meryl Streep tics in Prada. Cary Grant always played Cary Grant. Katharine Hepburn always played Katharine Hepburn. Etc.

It's a rare pleasure to find a famous actor who disappears into a variety of roles and whose tics and tricks you don't recognize. Kate Winslet comes to mind among women. Sean Penn and Jim Broadbent among men.