Imagine for a moment that Arnold Schwarzenegger's agent received a script called The Accountant in 1992 because its producer and director hoped against hope he would star in it. In this film, Schwarzenegger would play an emotionless genius who cooks the books for evil governments and crime syndicates, having been trained to do so by a military-man father who recognized his son would have a tough time of it in the ordinary world. The plot would be full of twists and turns, as Schwarzenegger w
Emma Watson Calls for Gender-Neutral Acting Prizes
(”Rain Man” is briefly mentioned in this.)
From the NYT:
Emma Watson Wins MTV’s Gender-Neutral Acting Prize
By CHRISTOPHER D. SHEA MAY 8, 2017
Emma Watson made a potent call for breaking down gender categories as she scooped up the gender-neutral film acting prize at the MTV Movie and TV Awards, in a speech that was broadcast on Sunday night.
An award “that doesn’t separate nominees based on their sex says something about how we perceive the human experience,” Ms. Watson, who won for her performance in “Beauty and the Beast,” said in her acceptance speech.
“MTV’s move to create a genderless award for acting will mean something different to everyone, but to me it indicates that acting is about the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes; and that doesn’t need to be separated into two different categories,” she said.
An earlier version of this article attributed an erroneous distinction to Emma Watson’s win of the gender-neutral acting prize. MTV awarded gender-neutral acting prizes at its movie awards show in 2006 and 2007; this was not the first-ever such award.
In other words, this isn’t a new idea. They’d tried it a decade ago and gave up.
There are lots of awards that don’t separate the sexes, such as the Nobel Prizes. What happens is that men usually win.
I’m sure there will be a big push in the op-ed columns for collapsing the number of acting Oscars at the Academy Awards from four to two. But the Academy would be extremely stupid as to give in to this because giving awards to movie stars is the whole point of the Academy Awards, so cutting the amount of time devoted to praising movie stars and adding more time to Sound Editing and Best Documentary would be Nielsen Ratings suicide.
Anyway, the main appeal of movie stars is that they play superb exemplifications of each sex.
I mean, Tilda Swinton, to take an exception who validates my generality, is a superb incarnation of upper classness, while being kind of androgynous. (She does have a child.)
But class, while interesting, isn’t as galvanizing to movie audiences as sex is. So Swinton is a rarity. And she tends to get restricted in bigger budget movies to odd sexless roles, like the Tibetan mystic in Doctor Strange or the Angel Gabriel in Constantine. She’s good in these kind of ethereal asexual roles, but they aren’t what sells tickets.
Much of what we hear lately about Gender Continuum is reminiscent of the now forgotten hoo-ha in the press in the early 1980s over the spate of gender-bender movies back then with movie stars playing the opposite sex like Julie Andrews in Victor Victoria, Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie, and Barbra Streisand in Yentl. I’ve never seen Victor Victoria, but what I noticed about the other two is that movie stars aren’t very good at impersonating the other sex.
Tootsie was full of good performances (e.g., Bill Murray) except for Hoffman in the lead, who was terrible at impersonating a woman. Hoffman was at the peak of his popularity and had plenty of technical skills (as he showed once again in the compulsively watchable Rain Man), but he was just plain bad at playing a convincing woman.
Why this general pattern? Because movie stars are movie stars because they appear to be highly sexed.
Emma Watson is an anomaly in that she was signed for an eight blockbuster run before puberty. At that point she looked like she’d grow up to be a beautiful young woman, but that didn’t quite happen, at least not by the extreme standards of movie star beauty. But she was heavily exposed by being in 8 Harry Potter movies. It seems like unhappy people gravitate toward her, daring the rest of the world to point out she’s not really all that pretty, and she accommodates their unhappiness by playing the offscreen role of political correct scold.
There is a lot of demand for that kind of thing these days.
Didn't we all learn something from the debacle that was "The Happening?"That 2008 "horror" movie told us what would happen if we don't stop abusing the environment - we'd see arguably the lamest shock film of the past decade. Even star Mark Wahlberg disowned it (after the film's release, of course).Now, fading auteur Barry Levinson of "Rain Man" fame is prepping a new eco-thriller for 2012. The project, according to SlashFilm.com, is called "The Bay" and will show the results of a viral outbreak along the Eastern seaboard.When two biological researchers from France find a staggering level of toxicity in the water, they attempt to alert the mayor, but he refuses to create a panic in the docile town.Wonder if the Mayor will sport either a Sarah Palin or Fox News T-shirt during a critical scene?Levinson could once do no wrong, witness a string of hits from "Diner" to "Good Morning, Vietnam." But he hasn't made a great film in ages. Will "The Bay" mark his comeback? The thought of another bloodless eco-horror romp scares me, frankly, but not in the way intended.
Now that Ebola has been loosed upon the land, I thought it would be jolly to have a killer-virus picture for our Saturday movie date. It seems as likely as any a way for the world to end, probably in a fortnight or so. Perhaps that's why recent remakes
1988 was the first year as a cinephile I made an "official" Top 10 list. And for a 2018 30th-anniversary project. I have listed here all the films from 1988 that I've seen, including subsequently (though eight of this Top 10 was in that grouping then). My project will involve re-watching one film per month from my current Top 10 (which I think stands up pretty well TBQH) and one film per month from 1988 that I've not seen.
I largely use Skandie eligibility rules, which first privilege US commercial release to determine what year a film is, regardless of what LBox may list. A film that played festivals in 1988 but was released commercially in the US in 1989 or 90 definitely goes in those latter years, and a film that played festivals in 1986 or 87 goes here regardless if commercially US-released in 88. Films that never were theatrically distributed in the US, or only a long time later (my judgment of what's "a long time" is final) -- they go by the year of festival premiere or home-country premiere, whichever looks better applicable to me. I also don't change lists per every IMDb update, that way lies madness -- once listed, a film's date acquires tenure.
Point of this list ... to solicit titles of unseen films for the latter part of the project ... either in the comments here or on Twitter. Suggest away.
The hilarious fiasco that ended the 89th annual Academy Awards may have given us all something to talk about, but Oscar’s real problem isn’t that he tripped over his own shoelaces. It’s that he has turned his back on us. For decades, the top honors from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences went … Continued
Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:
🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!
⚠️ Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links
👎🏻 Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+ free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.