The Oscars

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Snowflake

this has been done before, a lot, meaning actors portraying real-person imitators.

Oh, I know!

In fact, Mirren and Whitaker became the fourth actors in the last five years to win for non-fiction roles. I don't like the trend.

[Alex]

I don't remember if I posted it here. A breakdown of the overrepresentation of "mimicry" roles in the recent acting nominations? Something like 40% over the last four years have gone to portrayals of real people where in the previous five years it was more like 20%.

[Alex]

I can't argue with that (and I don't feel that being a remake necessarily hampers The Departed; yes, I know this is inconsistent with my practice of starting mimicry performances in the penalty box) but one big difference, I think, is that with a filmed remake of another film you are provided not just with story or specific dialog but also camera angles, editing decisions, pacing, staging, etc. You can pick what has already worked on film once while tweaking what has already been shown to not. In other words, while those other sources help with story they don't necessary help with the cinematic parts. I think United 93 should have been nominated for best picture (though not win) and there wasn't anything "creative" in the movie; it was intentionally un-creative.

Not having seen Infernal Affairs I don't know how much Scorcese benefited from all of that or if it was essentially like starting from scratch with a screenplay.

Interestingly, though, if the sequel to The Departed gets made it won't be a remake of the sequel to Internal Affairs since the American sequel will apparently focus on the Mark Wahlberg character that doesn't exist in the original version.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

but one big difference, I think, is that with a filmed remake of another film you are provided not just with story or specific dialog but also camera angles, editing decisions, pacing, staging, etc. You can pick what has already worked on film once while tweaking what has already been shown to not. In other words, while those other sources help with story they don't necessary help with the cinematic parts.

I definitely give more creative credit to films adapted from other media than I do ones remade from another film for this very reason. As evidenced by the early days of film, transferring theatric stage direction to the camera just doesn't cut it. Even dialog and story doesn't survive direct translation to screen. It takes quite a bit of creative effort to take a good play or novel and make it a good movie. With something that was already a movie once, much of that effort is already done for you.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Oh, I know!

In fact, Mirren and Whitaker became the fourth actors in the last five years to win for non-fiction roles. I don't like the trend.

Yeah, and I do agree with you here 100%.

Although, going back a few years, one of the few times I leap off my seat and cheered an Oscar win was to Martin Landau for his Bela Lugosi portrayal from Ed Wood. According to reports, it was not a true portrayal of Lugosi, but is was a helluva performance (I thought).