Let's Talk Movies #36 - 2020 - Yep it is a new decade

I never read the book or saw the movie as it was very “white savior”, now it turns out they are fraudsters. Not surprised.
Yeah, he's been complaining about the fabrications and his portrayal in that movie since it came out, and this whole situation seems even worse than most people thought. However, I'm also not surprised. There was just something so off about the whole thing.
 
Yeah, he's been complaining about the fabrications and his portrayal in that movie since it came out, and this whole situation seems even worse than most people thought. However, I'm also not surprised. There was just something so off about the whole thing.
Agreed. And it put me off from watching the movie.
 
Oscars Predictions: Supporting Actress – America Ferrera, Emily Blunt and Lily Gladstone Bring Early Critical Acclaim to the Race
https://variety.com/feature/2024-oscars-best-supporting-actress-predictions-1235678123/

I saw Oppenheimer yesterday, so I saw the #3 pick (Emily Blunt) give an amazing performance. (Well, actually she only has one scene where she really gets to show how freaking phenomenal she is.) And two of the preview movies featured the #1 pick with Lily Gladstone in Killers of the Flower Moon (which looks good, but a tough movie to watch) and the #5 pick with Da’Vine Joy Randolph in The Holdovers (which also looks very good).

I like how towards the end of the article they list THIRTY performances which may get an Oscar nod. Reading over all the upcoming movies has me excited for the rest of the year. :cheer:
 
Agreed. And it put me off from watching the movie.
I remember thinking that casting as likable an actress as Sandra Bullock was stacking the deck.

BTW we saw Oppenheimer on Monday and I was disappointed. I liked Nolan’s other movies but this was too artsy-fartsy for what is basically a biopic with political overtones.
 
Deleted...

Did it mention that it actually wasn't popular in China (at least originally)?
I don’t think the article did, but it did win awards in Asia. Ang Lee did talk about the inverse reception two of his movies received. He said CTHD had this huge impact in the West compared to China but that his film Lust, Caution didn’t make a dent in the West (despite it winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival) but was a huge hit in China.
 
I don’t think the article did, but it did win awards in Asia. Ang Lee did talk about the inverse reception two of his movies received. He said CTHD had this huge impact in the West compared to China but that his film Lust, Caution didn’t make a dent in the West (despite it winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival) but was a huge hit in China.
Lust, Caution is a great movie.
 
I don’t think the article did, but it did win awards in Asia. Ang Lee did talk about the inverse reception two of his movies received. He said CTHD had this huge impact in the West compared to China but that his film Lust, Caution didn’t make a dent in the West (despite it winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival) but was a huge hit in China.
Another example - Slumdog Millionnaire was a huge success in the west, but I heard that Indians (in India and in the west) were not impressed. I dont think they hated it, but they thought of it as just ordinary.
 
I don’t think the article did, but it did win awards in Asia. Ang Lee did talk about the inverse reception two of his movies received. He said CTHD had this huge impact in the West compared to China but that his film Lust, Caution didn’t make a dent in the West (despite it winning the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival) but was a huge hit in China.
I've never watched Lust, Caution, nor have I listened to this interview. There are some good, some nonsense, some ass-backwards reasons China hated CTHD at the time, as is usually the case when China hates anything. The funniest one will always be that only one of the four leads spoke properly lol, which is definitely going to be one of the reasons why it became a hit in the West - most won't notice. The ass-backwards one is that it's got three strong female roles - which will of course not be a hit among the more mysogynistic people out there.

I would not compare it to Slumdog Millionaire, which I would say is largely a racist movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr...ing_Slumdog_Millionaire#Protests_and_lawsuits
 
I've never watched Lust, Caution, nor have I listened to this interview. There are some good, some nonsense, some ass-backwards reasons China hated CTHD at the time, as is usually the case when China hates anything. The funniest one will always be that only one of the four leads spoke properly lol, which is definitely going to be one of the reasons why it became a hit in the West - most won't notice. The ass-backwards one is that it's got three strong female roles - which will of course not be a hit among the more mysogynistic people out there.

I would not compare it to Slumdog Millionaire, which I would say is largely a racist movie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contr...ing_Slumdog_Millionaire#Protests_and_lawsuits
I found an old New York Times article about why Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon didn't do well in China and Hong Kong, but did well elsewhere to the point where it was still the highest grossing "non-English film" of that year and made 214 million worldwide (of course, the U.S. being the biggest chunk of that success where it's still the highest grossing "non-English speaking film" of all time here).


Star power, however, was not enough to overcome a sense of ennui in audiences here. Weaned on the gun battles and hyperkinetic action of Jackie Chan movies, people did not have the patience for Mr. Lee's moody, contemplative look at the trials of heroic warriors in legendary China.

Law Kar, a historian at the Hong Kong Film Archive, noted that the first fight in ''Crouching Tiger'' does not break out for nearly 15 minutes. And when it does, it is a balletic nighttime chase played out over the roofs of old Beijing. There is not an automatic weapon in sight.

''In Chinese martial arts films you don't let the action slow down; you just feed them more fights,'' Mr. Law said. ''Ang Lee knows how to weave inner drama with outer drama. That may be the Hollywood way.''

Did Mr. Lee make a Chinese film for Westerners, as some critics in Hong Kong and mainland China have suggested? Mr. Law believes not, although he said that ''Crouching Tiger'' was a challenge to local tastes. He views the film as a homage to the Taiwanese director King Hu, who in his 1975 movie ''A Touch of Zen'' pioneered a poetic depiction of martial arts that is nothing like Hong Kong-style kung fu. Though critically acclaimed, ''A Touch of Zen'' was a box office failure here.

The movie's success was really odd. I think its success in the "West" was helped by it having a more western story structure, critical acclaim, unusual award reception, and people in the U.S. having a growing taste for martial arts films. However, underneath all of that, the success wasn't expected and it was ultimately still an "art house" film that made it big. Kind of like Ang Lee's Brokeback Mountain.
 
"Celebrated everywhere but at home" :lol: I mean, what is home? It is true that it is a "Hong Kong martial arts flick", and even has a Hong Konger lead, but it's made by a Taiwanese guy and has loads of American influence. That's got to grind people's gears in some places. I'm not sure I agree with the Jackie Chan action or "automatic weapons" stuff, but this does bring up why the action might have failed at the time in a better manner, in my opinion.


Ultimately, the genre is not something completely unknown to Chinese people, where it would very much have been so to the Western audiences at the time, making it new and fresh. Mixed in with western influence, poorly spoken mandarin, misogyny, it's not shocking it failed in China, because it's "unrealistic and nothing new" as the article suggests. There's also going to be the Chinese chauvinism of wishing to ignore Taiwan's accomplishment in this case. (ETA: but the article you linked also does bring up some of the same points, like with King Hu: link)

However, it's just true it's a beautiful film, and it's good that it became successful in the countries where it became successful.
 
Last edited:
I was watching the trailer for the new Leonard Bernstein movie, Maestro, directed by Bradley Cooper, which will be on Netflix. There have been online discourse on Cooper’s decision to modulate his nose to appear more like Bernstein. But I didn’t notice it when he was moving around, more during stills.

They were using Mahler’s music for the background, I was all Why are they using Scott and Tessa’s music? Doesn’t Leonard Bernstein have his own music?
 
Doesn’t Leonard Bernstein have his own music?
He certainly does. He was a conductor too so I know it’s not off to highlight another piece he may have been known for conducting, but, like you, I would have thought they would have used one of his pieces.

Reading a bit about the discourse about Cooper using a prosthetic nose and I totally get why people are reacting negatively to it. I think we’re getting past the point where we need actors to wear prosthetics to play real life people. Just style them as the person but keep the actor’s actual natural features. We’ll buy it if the actor can act the part, and if they need to “transform” to a totally different person for people to even buy that actor in the role, then maybe somebody else should be cast. I get we allow make up jobs in many aspects, but the nose is hitting a nerve for very good reasons.
 
Crazy Rich Asians wasn’t a huge hit in Asia either. But that doesn’t matter that much to me. As an Asian-Canadian, I think western Asians have their own unique culture, issues and stories.
Was it a hit in Canada? I don't know what's good about it, apart from Michelle Yeoh and Akwafina. It also only represented the rich Chinese Singaporeans, and didn't even show the Malays and the Tamils (apart from as security guards in the latter's case...)
 
Box office in North America combines Canada and US. It made just under 200 million, which is amazing for a romcom. Is there another recent romcom that had better numbers? I don’t consider Barbie a romcom.
 
I mean, if it's being presented as a rom-com, I 100% get why it succeeded where it did, along with the "representation" factor. That's obviously not going to matter to Asia, and there are likely better movies in the same genre made by Asians for Asians.

I don't think it had to do with "western Asians" having a different culture than Asians. Apart from the possible immigrant issue, I don't think it explored any of that, IMO.
 
I mean, if it's being represented as a rom-com, I 100% get why it succeeded where it did, along with the "representation" factor. That's obviously not going to matter to Asia, and there are likely better movies in the same genre made by Asians for Asians.

I don't think it had to do with "western Asians" having a different culture than Asians. Apart from the possible immigrant issue, I don't think it explored any of that, IMO.
I disagree about it not exploring any of that as it was one of the major points of contention that the elite Singaporean Chinese has over Nick choosing Rachel. It was more blatant in the book though. I also do think being an Asian immigrant to a non-Asian country will have a huge impact in the experiences of a person compared to if they were raised where they would be the “majority”. The cultural clashes alone will create a divergent experience even if the path diverges from the shared basic main road.

I personally thought the movie did a lot to push the image of Asians being “marketable” in American films and has led to some headway where more Asian-American (North American) projects started getting produced and gaining audiences.

That said, you brought up salient points about how CRA was just a portrayal of a certain sect of Singaporeans (not to mention erasing many other ethnic groups in Singapore or showcasing the non “crazy rich” part of Singapore, but it was in the title, so it didn’t really misrepresent what it was.

You did raise something worth mentioning though. The issue of Asian (Singaporean specifically in CRA’s case) representation in Hollywood studio-funded films… it happens so little so we want the movies to represent everything to everybody because it’s as common as catching a shooting star.
 
but that also raises the issue of Asian (Singaporean specifically in CRA’s case) representation in Hollywood studio-funded films… it happens so little so we want the movies to represent everything to everybody because it’s as common as catching a shooting star.

This is very much also one of my points. This kind of representation isn't going to matter to most of Asia, because why should it? Instead they are going to focus on things like why the heck the only two Indian men in the movie are guards. Since it matters more to North America, it's more successful there.


I disagree about it not exploring any of that as it was one of the major points of contention that the elite Singaporean Chinese has over Nick choosing Rachel. It was more blatant in the book though.

I personally thought the movie did a lot to push the image of Asians being “marketable” in American films and has lead to some headway where more Asian-American (North American) projects started getting produced and gaining audiences.

I don't really know if it captured the differences in the movie, for me anyway. I think that's perfectly fine. Surely, there is better writing out there, which can be brought to life. To me, it just read like a run of the mill 'rich guy poor girl, parents hate her' movie, with Yeoh and Akwafina doing amazingly well.

I'm sure its success meant a lot.

I will say, Constance Wu also starred in Fresh Off The Boat, and there were two(?) episodes where Randall Park's character is questioning his move to the US after seeing his brother's wealth in Taiwan. Those episodes captured the immigrant story better for me, anyway. But it's a TV show, and is never going to be marketed in the same way as a movie. And it's a comedy, so many probably won't take it seriously.
 
This is very much also one of my points. This kind of representation isn't going to matter to most of Asia, because why should it? Instead they are going to focus on things like why the heck the only two Indian men in the movie are guards. Since it matters more to North America, it's more successful there.






I don't really know if it captured the differences in the movie, for me anyway. I think that's perfectly fine. Surely, there is better writing out there, which can be brought to life. To me, it just read like a run of the mill 'rich guy poor girl, parents hate her' movie, with Yeoh and Akwafina doing amazingly well.

I'm sure its success meant a lot.

I will say, Constance Wu also starred in Fresh Off The Boat, and there were two(?) episodes where Randall Park's character is questioning his move to the US after seeing his brother's wealth in Taiwan. Those episodes captured the immigrant story better for me, anyway. But it's a TV show, and is never going to be marketed in the same way as a movie. And it's a comedy, so many probably won't take it seriously.
I think it's good to have something more "fun" and "shallow" just to show that we're humans and can act in a different genres. Many Asian performers haven't had success in this market and there have always been perceptions that we're not marketable, can't act (we have accents), etc.

It really wasn't the best movie ever, but I actually thought it was a pretty well-written film for what it was. A lot of movies (especially the ones you can find randomly on Netflix, etc.) that try to do that sort of story are REALLY bad and kind of shows doing a "rom com" is much harder than people think it is.
 
Blue Beetle - I thought the movie was just MEH. It did not do it for me although I love the actors. Blue Beetle was originally supposed to be for streaming and it shows. Plus too many eye roll moments. There are two post credit scenes but don’t bother with the second one. 5/10
 
:wideeyes:

What really annoys me about this mess is that there are people who are questioning whether Sandra Bullock should surrender her Oscar. Why the hell should she? All that she did was act her socks off and get rewarded for it. She didn't write the story, she didn't defraud anyone of anything. Plus, she is grieving a devastating loss right now. Just leave her alone.
 
Lethal Weapon is an action comedy from 1987. You might have heard of it. :lol: I decided to re-watch it because I didn’t remember anything about it other than it starred Mel Gibson and Danny Glover. I am wondering if production values have improved SO much over the years that even a big hit movie from the 80’s now looks a little cheap (as well as dated). Gibson exudes a lot of spark as a police officer still reeling from the death of his wife. And Glover gives the right amount of comedic edge considering his new partner is suicidal and the new pair are investigating the suicide (or possible killing) of the daughter of a friend of Glover’s. I have to admit that ogling Gibson in his pre-crazy days was a highlight of re-watching this for me. And Richard Donner does a good job of directing this movie, keeping the excitement and comedy and action all at a high level throughout. Gary Busey has a small role as the bad guy and singer Darlene Love has an even tinier role as Glover’s wife.

What really annoys me about this mess is that there are people who are questioning whether Sandra Bullock should surrender her Oscar. Why the hell should she? All that she did was act her socks off and get rewarded for it. She didn't write the story, she didn't defraud anyone of anything. Plus, she is grieving a devastating loss right now. Just leave her alone.

Some wacko saying Bullock should give back her Oscar is NOT a devastating loss. She will keep her Oscar.
 
In the silent-film era, all of the theaters had organs, so perhaps the theaters themselves paid for the organists? Up until 48 hours ago, I had no knowledge of
The theaters paid the organists. Plenty church organists also played in theaters which have different “stops” than church organs.
 
Reading a bit about the discourse about Cooper using a prosthetic nose and I totally get why people are reacting negatively to it. I think we’re getting past the point where we need actors to wear prosthetics to play real life people. Just style them as the person but keep the actor’s actual natural features. We’ll buy it if the actor can act the part, and if they need to “transform” to a totally different person for people to even buy that actor in the role, then maybe somebody else should be cast. I get we allow make up jobs in many aspects, but the nose is hitting a nerve for very good reasons.
Helen Mirren is starring in a new movie about Gold Meir so I wonder if her prosthetics will elicit the same reaction.
 
Helen Mirren is starring in a new movie about Gold Meir so I wonder if her prosthetics will elicit the same reaction.
You inspired me to Google search her and his movie and it seems when the news first came out, there was a lot of divisiveness about the casting and some accused her of “Jewface”. It’s making the festival circuits now and I wonder what the overall reactions will be from the Jewish community (and I recognize there is diversity in the community with different people of Jewish faith having their own unique backgrounds and histories).

I remember back in 2003/2004, Tovah Feldshuh did a hit one-woman Broadway show where she played Golda Meir in Golda’s Balcony. Valerie Harper did a movie adaptation in 2006. Both women wore prosthetic noses. I wonder what the discourse was for both women, especially Harper who is not Jewish. I guess the Harper film adaptation wasn’t a big budget film nor did it make big money (I don’t remember if it even receive a full theatrical release) so whatever discourse there was wouldn’t have hit “mainstream” news.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information