How fucking inane do you have to be to choose Ratatouille over Persepolis?
I am hereby declaring Jihad on Pixar, Disney, all voting members of the Academy, and that foul mouthed doughy comedian who provided the voice for the rat.
Thank you for listening.
PS: If Viggo gets the award for best Actor in Eastern Promises, the Academy is off the hook.
reggie [email] said at 12:20 AM 02-25-2008: Brad Bird's a pretty darn good filmmaker. I didn't see Ratatouille but both Iron Giant and The Incredibles were excellent movies.
jake [email] said at 9:04 AM 02-25-2008: I don't question that. And if he'd even acknowledged Persepolis in his acceptance, he might be off the list.
But, as good as he is, he didn't produce a breath taking, heart moving epic about the brutality of oppression, the magnificence of the human spirit, and the cycle of wonder that a young girl passes through on her way to womanhood. Nor did he produce a beautiful and evocative series of images through a combination of the best old and new animation practices, hewing closely to an artistic vision that is at once wrenching and visceral and also iconic and transcendant.
myriam [email] said at 10:08 AM 02-25-2008: That's pretty funny, I thought the same thing about the "cartoon" category. Ratatouille was cute but nothing ground-breaking... Toy Story & Monsters, Inc. were much more surprising and impressive, if you're thinking of Pixar films.
reggie [email] said at 11:02 AM 02-25-2008: Okay, again, I haven't seen either movie so I can only defend so much but if Josh can do it so can I! ;)
If you look at Metacritic you'll see that no movie released last year received I higher score than Ratatouille so maybe "inane" isn't the right choice of words, more like "inevitable."
(It should also be noted that Ratatouille was also nominated for Best Screenplay.)
I mean from afar, Persepolis looks to be pretty magnificent. But it also seems to be directed more at a very specific (read: arthouse) audience.
Typically I'd be on your side, a few years ago I was championing The Triplets of Bellville when The Incredibles was the juggernaut in the field and I LOVED The Incredibles, I don't think I had a better time at the movies all year...besides at Triplets. And last year I thought A Scanner Darkly should have been nominated for Best Animated feature as well.
It's a category that's still in its infancy so it's going to be a while before independent animated films have a legitimate shot at winning. They should either expand the field to five noms or take the next logical step and add a Best Foreign Language Animated Feature category.
Personally, I think it's unfair as it is that animated films are now basically relegated to this one category. For all intents and purposes Ratatouille was the most well-received movie of the year and yet it only legitimately had a shot at this one award (besides screenplay.) I'd also be more upset that Persepolis wasn't even eligible to be a best Foreign Language nominee from its own country.
jake [email] said at 12:56 PM 02-25-2008: I don't know what kind of promotion Persepolis got, and that obviously skews things.
I would guess that Ratatouille's metacritic scores have to do with it perfectly meeting expectations for a showy, funny pixar movie, rather than it being a great film.
I agree with you about Belville! I could forgive that because Incredibles did so much. But as good as it was, Belville was just another amazing film. Persepolis is an amazing film, that's also a tremendously humanizing portrait of the people we might be bombing next. And it's a work of propaganda encouraging them to liberate themselves.
I'm ashamed to say I expected more of the Academy. Now I know.
brandonA [email] said at 2:41 PM 02-26-2008: Filthy critic didn't like it - said she had way too much adolescent angst and way too little Iran - which having read the books (but not yet seen the movie), suggests to me she used more of the second book than the first.
If this is true, I'm worried that I won't like it, because I totally loved the first book, but didn't care much for the second. I'm still seeing it soon...
jake [email] said at 3:27 PM 02-26-2008: It seemed like an even mix to me, but I didn't review the books before hand. A lot of my favorite moments from the first book were there...
josh [email] said at 3:51 PM 02-25-2008: I'd also be more upset that Persepolis wasn't even eligible to be a best Foreign Language nominee from its own country.
Huh? Wikipedia says: "It was also France's Best Foreign Language Film entry, but was not nominated."
reggie [email] said at 7:04 PM 02-25-2008: Well it's not the film that France decided to submit for the Best Foreign Language. Maybe ineligible wasn't the right word but it wasn't the nominee. But each country can only submit ONE film and they didn't choose Persepolis.
reggie [email] said at 9:00 AM 02-26-2008: Well how is what I said in response to what you said contrarian? I was basically saying "I guess that was the case."
Chill out dude.
BUT, Julie -- who kinda works in "the industry" -- was telling me about how it wasn't eligible (again maybe not the most accurate word) but as I said above in this very response, how is MY response to your response contradictory?
reggie [email] said at 9:21 AM 02-26-2008: Not Persepolis! I'm thinking of Diving Bell & The Butterfly which is not animated at all but is a French language film. THAT'S the one that was not submitted for BFF because of Persepolis.
Okay? See, Josh-o-matic, I am what is referred to as a "human being." And as a human I am -- hold on to something now -- capable of making what is commonly known as a "mistake."
I know you and your robotic mind are incapable of making mistakes but we humans are susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature.
josh [email] said at 10:32 AM 02-26-2008: no offense man, but you are the one that seemed to flip out a bit above... i responded asking for clarification on a point of your initial comment that i didn't think was right...
I said "Huh? Wikipedia says:" and then I said "please provide me some counter evidence"... seems pretty mild-mannered to me... how is that worthy of ALL CAPS or a "chill out"?
amanda [email] said at 5:32 PM 02-25-2008: I have seen neither movie. However, "Ratatouille" does at face value appear to be catering (pardon the pun) to hipster foodies, what with perennial indie favourites Patton Oswalt and Janeane Garofalo starring, and 2007 seemed to be the year of the hipster poseur revolution with "Juno" and such. I'm not surprised that it won at all.
The Academy Awards mean about as much as the Grammys do. It's all politics and publicity and mostly about who turned up with the most embarrassing dress. The holocaust films always triumph, the guys who should have one 1-2 years earlier always win for their more current efforts, and...
Holy fuck! The Grammy Awards and the Oscars are exactly the same as every figure skating competition I've ever been in (except replace "holocaust films" with "music from 'Schindler's List'").
josh [email] said at 2:35 AM 02-27-2008: i dunno. javier bardem and DDL were the best performances i saw this year. and no country was one of the best 3 movies i saw this year. so there is some merit to the choices.
julie [email] said at 10:05 PM 02-26-2008: I've seen Persepolis (in the original French no less) and it's good. But, it's not GREAT. Parts of it are pretty hackneyed and "are you there god it's me margaret"-ish. I am confident that Ratatouille is the better film.
jake [email] said at 8:40 PM 02-27-2008: Julie, you are wise in many ways, but wrong on this one. Ratatouille may be lots and lots of fun. It may even be more enjoyable to more people. But can you list anything profound, historic, timely, or otherwise powerful about it?
julie [email] said at 11:05 PM 03-01-2008: As I said, I have not seen Ratatouille. But I do think cooking shows are timely, and it seems to capitalize beautifully on everyone's obsession with the Iron Chef and Top Chef and that restaurant reality show, etc. Besides, everyone knows rats are historic, profound, and powerful.
julie [email] said at 11:07 PM 03-01-2008: By the way, I share your Viggo sentiment, he was phenomenal in that role. He freaking LEARNED RUSSIAN... WITH A SIBERIAN ACCENT, NO LESS for that role. That, plus the naked wrestling, it should have been a shoe-in. He could drink up a goddamn milkshake.
milky [email] said at 4:42 PM 03-02-2008: His character was great, and you're right, it wasn't a great movie. It was serviceable, palatable, Cassel does what he does best (playing a prick) but that's it. I saw it a few times. Soaked it in.
I'm at the point right now where I really don't care what Cronenberg is doing anymore, and I thought I'd never live to say that. I really think his best work is far behind him.
josh [email] said at 4:47 PM 03-02-2008: i highly enjoyed history of violence. i do think his most innovative work is behind him but... he is an old man now. you can't expect him to have the freshness of a young filmmaker at 60.
milky [email] said at 4:57 PM 03-02-2008: Thems the breaks. A History of Violence was a bit of an anomoly. But yeah, 65...there's no heir to the throne. Shame, too.
rick [email] said at 4:55 PM 03-02-2008: I liked the "interview" his character does with the crime bosses. Now, that's what I call going over the resume.
julie [email] said at 7:19 PM 03-02-2008: Yeah, no shit. I'm not saying he ever had a chance, but just when you look at what he did in that role... it's a shame, is all. But I have love for DDL, so whatever. It's just a pity that so many great male roles existed this year, in so many great male-dominated films. Means that the 3rd runner up this year is still better than the winner from most years.
