2,339 posts
|
Fences
Mar 19, 2017 11:13:03 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 19, 2017 11:13:03 GMT
The film this time not the play. Watched this last night and really enjoyed this. Big fan of the play and with Denzel Washington and Viola Davis in the lead roles this had a lot going for it. Always interesting to see how they translate plays with one or two settings into a film? And how much dialogue do you leave out or change?
Fences > Manchester by the Sea. Fact |
|
3,057 posts
|
Fences
Mar 24, 2017 20:47:26 GMT
Post by ali973 on Mar 24, 2017 20:47:26 GMT
I just saw this today. I have to say that it's probably one of the best acted movies I've seen in a very very long time. Superb artistry throughout.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 24, 2017 23:29:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2017 23:29:08 GMT
I also thought this extremely good. Maybe a little too obvious it was a play, but with SUCH performances it's an awfully small complaint.
|
|
3,057 posts
|
Fences
Mar 25, 2017 8:42:01 GMT
Post by ali973 on Mar 25, 2017 8:42:01 GMT
Couldn't agree more- especially at the beginning, I was thinking to myself, "wow if there was ever a play that was transferred to film, this must be it." But it moves along fine once the drama really starts to unfold.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:13:01 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:13:01 GMT
I enjoyed this film but had my qualms. I hadn't seen the play so some of my issues are to do with the material itself, not just the filmmaking.
I've heard a lot of people complain that Denzel as a director didn't do enough to make the transition from stage to screen. I can see where people are coming from but ultimately as a theatre lover I'd be lying if I said it bothered me.
The acting is what makes this worth watching and for the most part it's on point. I had moments of thinking Denzel was making genius acting choices and moments of thinking he was overdoing it slightly. The supporting players were all excellent and Jovan Adepo actually gave my favourite performance of the entire ensemble.
Viola was obviously excellent but she didn't manage to sell the ending to me of this man who had basically been awful to everyone that loved him suddenly being some kind of heroic figure just because he had died. That fell completely flat for me, I saw no reason why these characters should all of a sudden be pretending he was a great or even respectable man. He was an awful person.
I also think it's a shame that Viola felt the need to category fraud her way into an Oscar, this was absolutely a leading role and I think she could have taken it from Emma Stone and she would have been a much better choice for the award too, even if I preferred Natalie Portman and Isabelle Huppert to both.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:23:33 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:23:33 GMT
Agree. There is no way Viola was a supporting role. Actually she should have been penalised for it this year and lost as Supporting Actress but clearly they were desperate to give her an Oscar. Shame as she's a terrific actress and would have definitely deserved one at some point.
Have to admit I couldn't really get into the film to be honest. I just don't *get* Denzel Washington and find him so 'samey' whenever I've seen him in anything.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:25:55 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:25:55 GMT
Do... do the actors themselves decide what categories they're in? I mean, I know there's an element of campaigning goes on, but there's a few thousand people voting on who they think the nominees should be, it seems a bit steep to look at one individual sitting oddly in a category and decide she and she alone has perpetrated an act of *fraud*.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:31:40 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:31:40 GMT
Do... do the actors themselves decide what categories they're in? I mean, I know there's an element of campaigning goes on, but there's a few thousand people voting on who they think the nominees should be, it seems a bit steep to look at one individual sitting oddly in a category and decide she and she alone has perpetrated an act of *fraud*. I believe the producers of each film, when 'submitting for consideration' put forward the categories they want people to be in, but I'm pretty sure Price Waterhouse (or ahem whoever in the future)/The Academy has the final say? But I think producers get that initial say in order to not pit their own actors against each other and split a vote etc.
Either way there's several steps from fraud there...
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:40:05 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:40:05 GMT
There's no submitting for categories at the Oscars but Viola and her team announced earlier in the season that she would campaign ('For Your Consideration') for supporting rather than lead. The Oscar committee don't have to agree (see Kate Winslet in 'The Reader' for example) but they often follow the FYC campaign when deciding who to put in which category. I think they probably felt that supporting was an easier category this year and Viola was desperate for an Oscar. Strangely Viola won the Tony for the same role in 'Fences' but as Lead Actress after campaigning from the producers to move her from Featured Actress which she was initially considered for (she was originally billed below the title). Mary Alice who originated the role in the 80s won as Featured Actress. So there's a bit of precedent there.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:43:20 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:43:20 GMT
There's no submitting for categories at the Oscars but Viola and her team announced earlier in the season that she would campaign ('For Your Consideration') for supporting rather than lead. The Oscar committee don't have to agree (see Kate Winslet in 'The Reader' for example) but they often follow the FYC campaign when deciding who to put in which category. I think they probably felt that supporting was an easier category this year and Viola was desperate for an Oscar. Strangely Viola won the Tony for the same role in 'Fences' but as Lead Actress after campaigning from the producers to move her from Featured Actress which she was initially considered for (she was originally billed below the title). Mary Alice who originated the role in the 80s won as Featured Actress. So there's a bit of precedent there. I stand corrected then  my brief googling failed me! I knew people 'campaigned' but wasn't quite sure how it works. |
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:50:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:50:29 GMT
Just to clarify, 'category fraud' is a very commonly used term in the world of Oscars discussion, I'm not attempting to accuse Viola of legitimate fraud or anything similar.
And yes, the studios and actors usually both have a say in how they will be campaigned (and the Oscars have the right to ignore but rarely do). However, the actors have to agree before it happens and in Viola's case it seems she actively wanted to go for supporting and indeed as soon as she made that announcement she was a lock in that category from then on.
|
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 12:55:12 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 12:55:12 GMT
There's no submitting for categories at the Oscars but Viola and her team announced earlier in the season that she would campaign ('For Your Consideration') for supporting rather than lead. The Oscar committee don't have to agree (see Kate Winslet in 'The Reader' for example) but they often follow the FYC campaign when deciding who to put in which category. I think they probably felt that supporting was an easier category this year and Viola was desperate for an Oscar. Strangely Viola won the Tony for the same role in 'Fences' but as Lead Actress after campaigning from the producers to move her from Featured Actress which she was initially considered for (she was originally billed below the title). Mary Alice who originated the role in the 80s won as Featured Actress. So there's a bit of precedent there. I stand corrected then my brief googling failed me! I knew people 'campaigned' but wasn't quite sure how it works. I believe in this example Viola could technically have been considered for both Lead Actress AND Supporting Actress for the same role and then it would come down to how many votes she received in each category from the Academy voters. If more people voted for her as lead, she'd have been nominated for Best Actress and vice versa. The Kate Winslet example is an interesting one. She'd campaigned for Best Supporting Actress for 'The Reader' and had indeed won supporting actress awards earlier in the season [SAG, Golden Globe for example] (she'd campaigned as lead actress for 'Revolutionary Road' in the same season). You can't be nominated for more than one acting award in the same category and the Academy clearly preferred her performance in 'The Reader' and considered it a leading role. She'd actually won two Golden Globes that season, Best Actress for 'Revolutionary Road' and Best Supporting Actress in 'The Reader'. Again, politics though so that her campaign for 'The Reader' wouldn't affect her campaign for 'Revolutionary Road' which is more of a leading role than 'The Reader'. It was a difficult decision as it was arguably her strongest acting year and her strongest chance (she was desperate to win one) and there was very much a feeling that it was her year after several nominations (much like Viola). Very often, people nominated in both categories end up losing in both so one of the performances had to be ditched for the Oscars and 'The Reader' was seen as more of an Oscar-worthy performance. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 20:04:24 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Mar 27, 2017 20:04:24 GMT
I stand corrected then my brief googling failed me! I knew people 'campaigned' but wasn't quite sure how it works. I believe in this example Viola could technically have been considered for both Lead Actress AND Supporting Actress for the same role and then it would come down to how many votes she received in each category from the Academy voters. If more people voted for her as lead, she'd have been nominated for Best Actress and vice versa. The Kate Winslet example is an interesting one. She'd campaigned for Best Supporting Actress for 'The Reader' and had indeed won supporting actress awards earlier in the season [SAG, Golden Globe for example] (she'd campaigned as lead actress for 'Revolutionary Road' in the same season). You can't be nominated for more than one acting award in the same category and the Academy clearly preferred her performance in 'The Reader' and considered it a leading role. She'd actually won two Golden Globes that season, Best Actress for 'Revolutionary Road' and Best Supporting Actress in 'The Reader'. Again, politics though so that her campaign for 'The Reader' wouldn't affect her campaign for 'Revolutionary Road' which is more of a leading role than 'The Reader'. It was a difficult decision as it was arguably her strongest acting year and her strongest chance (she was desperate to win one) and there was very much a feeling that it was her year after several nominations (much like Viola). Very often, people nominated in both categories end up losing in both so one of the performances had to be ditched for the Oscars and 'The Reader' was seen as more of an Oscar-worthy performance. I always thought that Em's was correct... because Mark Kermode told me. Is it somewhere in the middle then? |
|
|
|
Fences
Mar 27, 2017 20:26:14 GMT
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2017 20:26:14 GMT
'After finally seeing the film herself last week, Davis felt her performance as Rose Maxson was a supporting one, and Paramount is respecting her decision. On Monday, the studio will submit her in the supporting category for Screen Actors Guild Awards consideration. The same is expected with the Hollywood Foreign Press Assn. for the Golden Globes.' variety.com/2016/film/in-contention/viola-davis-supporting-actress-fences-1201898286/ |
|
my brief googling failed me! I knew people 'campaigned' but wasn't quite sure how it works.