We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

"Moonlight" (2016)

A must see

  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 05:28 PM

Yeah, I've seen a few posts, even on this message board, that have said that the only reason so many minority performers have been nominated was political. Your comment is the first that I've read about Streep being "rewarded" for her anti-Trump stance, and I don't see that happening. In fact, I would guess that she receives less votes than any of the other nominees for Best Actress this year, not for political reasons, but simply because there has been more positive word-of-mouth about the other nominees. The winner will be Huppert or Portman.

 

The "asterisk" talk is unfortunate, but not unexpected after the brouhaha last year. I just hope producers continue to make as many films with diverse casts and diverse storylines that every year has an abundance of performances to choose from. 

 

I did read an editorial somewhere, maybe HuffPost, where the author (who was black) was lamenting this year's nominees not because of lack of diversity but rather for the fact that most if not all nominated roles were those that had to be played by a minority performer. He feels that true equality won't arrive until there are more race-neutral roles given to minorities, and then those get recognized in awards season. My only argument with that is that most "award-bait" films are based on true stories, which by definition come with race-casting requirements.

Oh please give me a break- first I dislike this "people of color" label which sounds both retro and insulting- so a black actor must be nominated for a role that is not a "black role"?  Define not a black role?   This is same dumb thinking that labels the Ryan  Gosling    character from "La La Land" racist because he wants to save jazz- hmm because you know white people like Dave Brubeck are not of the right color to appreciate jazz.  If an actor is going to play a historical character like the women in "Hidden Fences" the entire point of the movie is the struggle they faced because they were women and black!   Color blind casting usually works in theater but film by it's nature is a more realistic medium.   If someone had made " Fences" with an all white cast  there would have been an outrage from the politically correct police. 


  • LawrenceA likes this

#22 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,446 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:34 PM

 

I did read an editorial somewhere, maybe HuffPost, where the author (who was black) was lamenting this year's nominees not because of lack of diversity but rather for the fact that most if not all nominated roles were those that had to be played by a minority performer. He feels that true equality won't arrive until there are more race-neutral roles given to minorities, and then those get recognized in awards season. My only argument with that is that most "award-bait" films are based on true stories, which by definition come with race-casting requirements.

 

Interesting.   It was my understanding that people of color wanted THEIR stories told because THEIR stories were unique.  Isn't that the core of identity politics?

 

So while I tend to agree with race-neutral roles (but hey, I'm a half breed) such roles would imply that we are all more similar than different and that is a PC no-no.


  • LawrenceA likes this

#23 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Caretaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,493 posts
  • LocationThe Overlook Hotel

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:29 PM

What you and Jaragon have commented on is what makes this year's L.A. Times POV on the Oscars so confusing to me.

 

It is like they are saying that there should be an asterisk next to any 'people of color' winner because those selections were driven mostly by politics instead of what voters really believed were the best performances.     Note this isn't only related to people of color since they have implied Streep might win another one as a reward for of her now famous speech.

 

I would hope the main reason for the increase in nominations for people of color were due to the fact that they are feature in more high quality films this year,  but a secondary factor may be because older male white members are going to see these films that may have been outside of their typical interest zone (due to being "compelled" by Oscar so White).

 

But since this sea-change is occurring the year after the ruckus this opens the door for all type of speculation and thus that implied asterisk (which is unfair to those responsible for their outstanding work). 

 

Yeah, I've seen a few posts, even on this message board, that have said that the only reason so many minority performers have been nominated was political. Your comment is the first that I've read about Streep being "rewarded" for her anti-Trump stance, and I don't see that happening. In fact, I would guess that she receives less votes than any of the other nominees for Best Actress this year, not for political reasons, but simply because there has been more positive word-of-mouth about the other nominees. The winner will be Huppert or Portman.

 

The "asterisk" talk is unfortunate, but not unexpected after the brouhaha last year. I just hope producers continue to make as many films with diverse casts and diverse storylines that every year has an abundance of performances to choose from. 

 

I did read an editorial somewhere, maybe HuffPost, where the author (who was black) was lamenting this year's nominees not because of lack of diversity but rather for the fact that most if not all nominated roles were those that had to be played by a minority performer. He feels that true equality won't arrive until there are more race-neutral roles given to minorities, and then those get recognized in awards season. My only argument with that is that most "award-bait" films are based on true stories, which by definition come with race-casting requirements.


  • jaragon likes this

#24 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,446 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 09 February 2017 - 04:19 PM

Exactly my thoughts. There just weren't many quality films or roles featuring blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc last year. The one performance that got overlooked that seemed to draw the most attention was Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation, but that was a Netflix co-production and I don't know how much that effected the voting. Although this year's Manchester By the Sea was an Amazon Prime co-production, so who knows. This year had many more outstanding opportunities with the movies made, which is where the blame should have gone in the first place: the films being made, and not the Oscar nominating body.

 

What you and Jaragon have commented on is what makes this year's L.A. Times POV on the Oscars so confusing to me.

 

It is like they are saying that there should be an asterisk next to any 'people of color' winner because those selections were driven mostly by politics instead of what voters really believed were the best performances.     Note this isn't only related to people of color since they have implied Streep might win another one as a reward for of her now famous speech.

 

I would hope the main reason for the increase in nominations for people of color were due to the fact that they are feature in more high quality films this year,  but a secondary factor may be because older male white members are going to see these films that may have been outside of their typical interest zone (due to being "compelled" by Oscar so White).

 

But since this sea-change is occurring the year after the ruckus this opens the door for all type of speculation and thus that implied asterisk (which is unfair to those responsible for their outstanding work). 

 

(related to movies this reminds me of the comment Barrymore makes in Key Largo about the Osceola brothers at the end of the film).



#25 LawrenceA

LawrenceA

    Caretaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 19,493 posts
  • LocationThe Overlook Hotel

Posted 09 February 2017 - 03:11 PM

The Oscar So White thing was ridiculous- is the Academy suppose to nominate a minority actor just to fill some sort of politically correct quota?  This year has been a real bounty for film starring black actors- "Fences", "Hidden Figures" and the very special "Moonlight"  

 

Exactly my thoughts. There just weren't many quality films or roles featuring blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc last year. The one performance that got overlooked that seemed to draw the most attention was Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation, but that was a Netflix co-production and I don't know how much that effected the voting. Although this year's Manchester By the Sea was an Amazon Prime co-production, so who knows. This year had many more outstanding opportunities with the movies made, which is where the blame should have gone in the first place: the films being made, and not the Oscar nominating body.


  • jaragon and rayban like this

#26 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 09 February 2017 - 02:59 PM

Interesting letters to the L.A. Times regarding Moonlight and that it was a stereotypically film about the African-American community since those characters are crack dealers and that the safer, more PC choice,  is what Jaragon stated,  Hidden Figures (which also features women in a very positive light so there is 'two for one' as it relates to politically motivated voting). 

 

To me the larger point is that last year the L.A. Times was on a rampage related to the lack of 'people of color' nominations and the lack of diversity of the Academy voters (which were mostly over 50 white males,  so I supported adding more diversity).     The Times implied these old, white male voters were bias (which of course they were because we all are tribal,  with the only remaining question being how much does that drive us).

 

So the Academy adds new members and drops a few of those older timers and now the Times is implying many of these new members based their vote on political bias.    Little about voting for what one considers the 'best' in a given category.

 

I don't wish this thread to become political but I do wonder if someone else wasn't dominating the news cycle,  if the Times would have a different POV.

The Oscar So White thing was ridiculous- is the Academy suppose to nominate a minority actor just to fill some sort of politically correct quota?  This year has been a real bounty for film starring black actors- "Fences", "Hidden Figures" and the very special "Moonlight"   I never saw this film as movie about crack dealers and the drug wars even though they seem to be trying to sell it that way- never mind that main character seems to be struggling with his homosexual desires and that the only love scene in the movie features two young men.  The films power is that it manages to transcend  race and sexuality .


  • Swithin, LawrenceA and rayban like this

#27 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,446 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 09 February 2017 - 11:59 AM

Moonlight's gay aspect is rather touching and not especially daring. The daring aspect is that there are two sympathetic characters in the film who are crack dealers, one of whom is gay. It's a complex film. 

 

Interesting letters to the L.A. Times regarding Moonlight and that it was a stereotypically film about the African-American community since those characters are crack dealers and that the safer, more PC choice,  is what Jaragon stated,  Hidden Figures (which also features women in a very positive light so there is 'two for one' as it relates to politically motivated voting). 

 

To me the larger point is that last year the L.A. Times was on a rampage related to the lack of 'people of color' nominations and the lack of diversity of the Academy voters (which were mostly over 50 white males,  so I supported adding more diversity).     The Times implied these old, white male voters were bias (which of course they were because we all are tribal,  with the only remaining question being how much does that drive us).

 

So the Academy adds new members and drops a few of those older timers and now the Times is implying many of these new members based their vote on political bias.    Little about voting for what one considers the 'best' in a given category.

 

I don't wish this thread to become political but I do wonder if someone else wasn't dominating the news cycle,  if the Times would have a different POV.


  • rayban likes this

#28 Swithin

Swithin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 08 February 2017 - 11:23 PM

I agree.   So the question is will Academy voters be fine with the safest feel good choice or will they feel the need to make a statement.  Note that in the same article it said that Meryl Streep changes increased due to the need to make a statement. 

 

Moonlight's gay aspect is rather touching and not especially daring. The daring aspect is that there are two sympathetic characters in the film who are crack dealers, one of whom is gay. It's a complex film. 


  • rayban likes this

#29 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 08 February 2017 - 09:04 PM

The Best Picture Oscar will go to the "safe choice" LA LA LAND because  (1) it is safe, not especially controversial, and there are still a lot of older voters and  (2) it is about Hollywood and Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood.  I would like to see MOONLIGHT win.  I haven't seen it yet but I have read wonderful things about it.

I agree - the older voters may not go for "Moonlight" another safe uplifting choice is "Hidden Figures" - it's a historical period drama which celebrates women, the fight for civil rights and the space program. An all around winner which does make a political statement about breaking barriers and inclusion of all


  • ChristineHoard and rayban like this

#30 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,446 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 February 2017 - 08:59 PM

The Best Picture Oscar will go to the "safe choice" LA LA LAND because  (1) it is safe, not especially controversial, and there are still a lot of older voters and  (2) it is about Hollywood and Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood.  I would like to see MOONLIGHT win.  I haven't seen it yet but I have read wonderful things about it.

 

What you wrote is very logical and makes total sense.    But of course prior to November we saw some other predictions that were just as logical and sensible and we all know how that turned out!    ;)    


  • ChristineHoard, jaragon and rayban like this

#31 ChristineHoard

ChristineHoard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 930 posts
  • LocationGA

Posted 07 February 2017 - 07:39 PM

The Best Picture Oscar will go to the "safe choice" LA LA LAND because  (1) it is safe, not especially controversial, and there are still a lot of older voters and  (2) it is about Hollywood and Hollywood loves movies about Hollywood.  I would like to see MOONLIGHT win.  I haven't seen it yet but I have read wonderful things about it.


  • rayban likes this

#32 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,446 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 February 2017 - 07:30 PM

" Arrival" is  interesting but kind of boring- yes it does a "political" message but it's a bit obvious..." Moonlight" is more daring but for some reason the studio seems to be downplaying the gay angle... "La La Land" is the safest feel good choice...

I agree.   So the question is will Academy voters be fine with the safest feel good choice or will they feel the need to make a statement.  Note that in the same article it said that Meryl Streep changes increased due to the need to make a statement. 



#33 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 07 February 2017 - 07:03 PM

The L.A. Times is hinting that La La Land will not win for 'best picture' because a movie with a political theme \ angle 'needs' to win.

 

Arrival was the columnist first choice for what should be very obvious reasons.

 

Moonlight was their second choice.

" Arrival" is  interesting but kind of boring- yes it does a "political" message but it's a bit obvious..." Moonlight" is more daring but for some reason the studio seems to be downplaying the gay angle... "La La Land" is the safest feel good choice...


  • rayban likes this

#34 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 17,446 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 February 2017 - 06:45 PM

This is not only one of the best gay theme movies I've seen in a while but one of the best movies of the year....

 

The L.A. Times is hinting that La La Land will not win for 'best picture' because a movie with a political theme \ angle 'needs' to win.

 

Arrival was the columnist first choice for what should be very obvious reasons.

 

Moonlight was their second choice.


  • rayban likes this

#35 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 07 February 2017 - 05:32 PM

Just saw it -- masterful, beautiful, deeply moving: the best movie of the year.

 

giphy-tumblr.gif

Cinema art at it's finest


  • rayban likes this

#36 Swithin

Swithin

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 12,279 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 06 February 2017 - 08:35 PM

This is not only one of the best gay theme movies I've seen in a while but one of the best movies of the year....

 

Just saw it -- masterful, beautiful, deeply moving: the best movie of the year.

 

giphy-tumblr.gif


  • jaragon and rayban like this

#37 jaragon

jaragon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 762 posts

Posted 26 November 2016 - 06:45 PM

This is not only one of the best gay theme movies I've seen in a while but one of the best movies of the year....


  • Swithin, LawrenceA and rayban like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users