too bad they don't give oscars for effort, eh leo?
Is it possible for an actor to be more tryhard?
>>63383731
It is possible
Also, he's starring in an Alejandro "Look closely at my movie because IT'S ARTISTIC" Innarriittuu flick, which means he's trying even harder than normal.
>>63383795
>Look closely at my movie because IT'S ARTISTIC
Do you say that about every serious director or is Iñárritu the only one who's films you've seen?
>>63383731
You know Leo signed onto the revenant before Birdman did so well at the oscars.
I can just imagine Leo being smug, thinking he's found this Mexican director that's about to go mainstream and thinking he's gone ride the coattails with him.
And then Leo just watching as Birdman does ridiculously well and everyone's over Inarritu now and thinks Leo's just trying to cash in on the hype
Sort of thing that would drive a man to suicide
MAYBE IF I SHOUT LOUD ENOUGH I'LL GET AN OSCAR
I don't know why you guys consider Birdman a try hard movie or oscar bait. It seemed like a very cool, cheeky black comedy to me.
>>63383971
except there is little dialogue
>>63384056
reddit liked it and it won Oscars
>IMAGINE BEIN THE BEAR
>>63383971
GIVE ME MY FUCKING OSCAR
I can't wait to see his face when the award goes to the tranny character for PC points
>an actor being a 'tryhard' and taking pride in the work he chooses is a bad thing
The oscars are a pointless, bullshit exercise in back patting for Hollywood, and Leo is far from a great actor, but he should still be commended for not selling out. Almost everything he commits to is above average and that's a good thing in an era of endless shit.
He will only get an Oscar post mortem, as a joke.
>>63383898
No, Hackarritu is particularly overt in his efforts to make people pay attention to the artistic elements of his movies. If you haven't watched a lot of serious directors though, it might be hard for you to see that. They're hamfisted.
>>63384220
>particularly overt in his efforts to make people pay attention to the artistic elements of his movies.
Like what?
>>63384250
Jesus christ. Never mind kid. stick to Nolan
>>63383731
Yes.
See the last winner.
>>63384250
>>63384340
>Ask for examples
>Nothing personnel, kid.
Retards, everyone.
>>63384340
OK. Stick to weak bait.
i dont understand, what other performances of his were oscar-worthy?
im serious, ill wait.
>>63383731
Just read that this is about revenge, I always though it was just this guy lost on the frontier
but has my interst now
>>63384250
when i was watching birdman the constant camera movement whilst trying to maintain a single shot took me out of the instead of immersing me. not to mention the heavyhanded script and relentless pacing that never really gave much breathing space in a supposedly'cerebral' film
>>63384440
Gilbert Grape
The Aviator
>>63384440
The departed and the aviator. His performance in wolf of Wall Street is a bit overrated but still entertaining as fuck
>>63383971
he doesn't even shouts all the time. stop this lame meme
>>63384466
You're basically admitting that you couldn't keep up.
>>63384440
The Departed and Django Unchained
>>63384440
Django
>>63384521
It blows my mind that Warner Bros. campaigned for Leo's Best Actor nomination for Blood Diamond over The Departed
>>63384535
ok bud
>>63384546
>total fucking pleb detected
His best work is The Aviator and Gilbert Grape.
>>63384450
Yeah we have way too many films about a man and his struggle against the forces of nature and coming to terms with his own humanity and not enough about a guy trying to kill the guy that fucked his wife
>>63383731
Does he really want an Oscar that bad? I always thought he genuinely just like acting and being a movie star.
>>63384535
are you fucking retarded? are you like those nolan fags who use 'you didn't understand it' to deflect any criticism?
that isn't 'basically' what I was saying. you must have a pretty fucking basic understanding of english and film criticism.
>>63384440
Appearantly I am the only one who liked Shutter Island and I like him in that even though he gets out-acted by Le Quirky Man Who May Or May Not Be Evil Actor.
>>63384606
Who cares about that scene, he was great overall, but Waltz was a bit better
>>63384560
Shits crazy. I actually just watched blood diamond for the first time last week. I went into it thinking I'm in for one of Leo's best, but was pretty disappointed. Meanwhile I've seen departed more times than I can count and I'm still blown away that he wasn't even nominated. I didn't know that was the reason though. Fucking retards
>>63384440
I don't care what people say, I loved him in Inception.
>>63384626
>that isn't 'basically' what I was saying.
>the constant camera movement whilst trying to maintain a single shot took me out of the instead of immersing me
>relentless pacing that never really gave much breathing space in a supposedly'cerebral' film
Both these arguments rest on you not able to keep up.
>>63384162
Yeah this. That movie looks like the very epitome of oscar bait.
>thinking that he care about winning oscar
>>63384665
i did keep up, but that doesn't change the fact that the pacing left no down time. birdman is the very definition of style over substance you fucking idiot
>>63384654
I'd say he played the part as well as anyone could've, but the character as it was written isn't Oscar worthy.
>>63383731
>Is it possible for an actor to be more tryhard?
oh my yes
https://youtu.be/Kb-dhzSPFiU
>>63384736
There was plenty of substance (whatever that means) and the cinematography was the only "stylish" technique they used, even though the camera work and pacing were part and parcel of the film's themes.
>>63384827
>There was plenty of substance (whatever that means)
The fact that you have no idea what the fuck substance means, yet you go out of your way to say that Birdman had it, shows what a fucking useful idiot you are, the exact kind of person Birdman is for.
When's the Oscars?
>>63384653
Yeah WB hedged their bets very poorly with that one. Personally I thought the performance was decent, definitely not oscar worthy. The only really bad part is his cringey accent
>>63384925
>The fact that you have no idea what the fuck substance means,
No, I said that because the word gets thrown around a lot and people really don't explain what they mean by it. It's like calling a movie pretentious. In hindsight my sentence does seem a little confusing and I should have put "substance" in quotation marks.
So my question now is what do you mean by substance? If you mean underlying themes, then yes Birdman had some very interesting themes going on under the narrative.
>>63384827
>There was plenty of substance (whatever that means)
woah I think someone just summed up the core of Inarritu's appeal
>>63384415
>>63384425
Stick to /v/eddit
>>63384994
Substance isn't just those 'themes', it's how the film deals with those themes, how the themes are presented, how does form meet content in a provocative way. Birdman is full of juvenile nonsense, the film tries to be a serious character study but sacrifices that for cheap laughs and two dimensional characters.
>>63384994
>So my question now is what do you mean by substance?
what Birdman thought it was doing: representing the actor's creative struggle for sincerity and artistic integrity
what it wound up doing: implying that creative expression is the same as being a suicidal mental patient.
it's about how well the story dramatizes the themes. it's very easy to have the characters stand around talking about ideas but harder to write a story which demonstrates those ideas coherently.
Stories which did it recently: Ex Machina, Diary Of a Teenaged Girl
Stories which don't do it but are technically well-executed causing people to mistake them for having something to say: Sicario, Birdman, Aaronovsky movies, etc.
>>63383731
What if Leo doesn't care about getting an oscar?
What if he is just a very hard working actor doing his best?
>>63384115
>DAMN LEO U TALENTLESS HACK U FUCKIN FINE I'D TOTALLY GIVE U THE OSCAR
No bear rape = no Oscar
>>63384976
April or may
>>63385123
>Birdman is full of juvenile nonsense
It touches on themes of art vs. populism, realism vs. theatricality, the process of artistic creation as well as the paradoxes of celebrity.
If this is juvenile nonsense, I'd like to hear what you consider high-brow.
>the film tries to be a serious character study
Right from the first line of the movie it clearly does not.
>>63385138
>what it wound up doing: implying that creative expression is the same as being a suicidal mental patient.
That's not what the ending implied at all. It implied that acclaimed creative expressions can just as easily be total accidents and flukes as much as carefully thought out works of inspired genius. Raymond Carver's deliberate work of fiction can garner acclaim just as much as its haphazard, improvised adaptation overseen by an unstable actor.
>it's about how well the story dramatizes the themes. it's very easy to have the characters stand around talking about ideas but harder to write a story which demonstrates those ideas coherently.
Exactly, and Birdman did it primarily by having the themes self-referenced in the structure of the movie itself, not to mention in its narrative progression.
>Ex Machina
Please. Birdman had more ideas in it than that basic introduction to the ethics and philosophies of artificial intelligence.
>>63385138
>>63384607
Its a meme made up by his fanbase mostly and I don't think he's ever really said anything outright about the matter
That said, you can kinda see it in his face on awards night how he really thinks he has a chance at it and he looks genuinely crestfallen when someone else wins. Its not unreasonable though, he's been nominated so many times without winning that anyone would probably be frustrated at it.
The thing about being gracious towards not getting the Oscar is most of the actors who show that graciousness have already won an Oscar before. Tom Hanks had a period where he tried really hard to take 'Oscar roles', but when he lost every year on the big night he was still pleasant and didn't look upset, but that's because he already has one.
>>63384467
>The Aviator
Exactly what was Oscar worthy about this? It was a completely by-the-numbers forgettable performance.
>>63385411
>If this is juvenile nonsense, I'd like to hear what you consider high-brow.
pretty much anything if it's dramatized in plausible and engaging way, which this wasn't.
dramatization is what makes a set of themes more than just a list of cute platitudes. Inarritu is fucking shit at it, and OBVIOUSLY shit.
>That's not what the ending implied at all. It implied that acclaimed creative expressions can just as easily be total accidents and flukes as much as carefully thought out works of inspired genius. Raymond Carver's deliberate work of fiction can garner acclaim just as much as its haphazard, improvised adaptation overseen by an unstable actor.
yeah, but that's bullshit. and they clearly wanted us to take him trying to kill himself onstage and failing as some kind of ultra-sincere cry from the heart.
the storytelling was a crock of shit. it wasn't even plausible that the public would have reacted like that but the ending literally relied on it.
>having the themes self-referenced in the structure of the movie itself
it did it badly, and in a forced, on-the-nose way. no one needs to be told that capeshit is dumb but the movie offered that as a noteworthy observation.
>Ex Machina
of course Birdman had more in it - because it was just characters talking about themes. Ex Machina dramatized its themes properly, so it made everything seem simpler, because that's what "show don't tell" does. the thing that makes you dismiss it is what makes it superior lol XD.
I get the place where you're coming from - there are people who think the Before Sunrise movies are good too. they're wrong as well. there's really no point in arguing, you're stuck with the set of assumptions you have and you'll be an easy mark for future entries in the pseudointellectual indy trash subgenre. I'll stick with Bergman and Kubrick thanks.
>Ex Machina
Christ! Are people really hyping this pile of shit?
His acting is so bad, i can't recall any of the names of the characters he has played. All I see is Leo DiCaprio as Leo DiCaprio.
>>63384180
lol
wat
every single thing he does is to win an oscar
nigga is desperate af
this guy it did right
He...
> directed the film
> wrote the film
> starred in the film
that perfectly catered to the Academy's pretentious appeal.
He won his Oscar and called it a day.
He also did it while playing full retard.
Jodie Foster and Sean Pen was pissed.
>>63385695
>pretty much anything if it's dramatized in plausible and engaging way, which this wasn't.
Saying something doesn't make it so. Try putting some actualsubstanceinto your argument next time.
>dramatization is what makes a set of themes more than just a list of cute platitudes.
Are you saying Birdman wasn't dramatization? What are you even talking about?
> Inarritu is fucking shit at it, and OBVIOUSLY shit.
See my first point.
>yeah, but that's bullshit.
See my first point.
>and they clearly wanted us to take him trying to kill himself onstage and failing as some kind of ultra-sincere cry from the heart.
No, that was what the theater audience in the film saw it as. The people watching the movie itself know that Riggan is an unstable man with a whole bunch of his
own personal and professional problems. In case you missed it, the subtitle of the movie (which is also mentioned in the newspaper article after the show) clearly
refers to the theme of how art can also come from sheer ignorance.
>the storytelling was a crock of shit.
See my first point.
>it wasn't even plausible that the public would have reacted like that but the ending literally relied on it.
Why are you discussing plausibility in a movie? Is it also not implausible that the supergenius in your beloved Ex-Machina didn't thinkg up failsafes? The point of the public in the movie reacting like that is part of the movie's theme of art vs. populism - that unanimous critical and popular adulation can also be misguided.
>of course Birdman had more in it - because it was just characters talking about themes. Ex Machina dramatized its themes properly, so it made everything seem simpler, because that's what "show don't tell" does. the thing that makes you dismiss it is what makes it superior lol XD.
I don't know if you're shitposting or trying to make a point.
>beard acting
>shout acting
Thats Leo
>>63385695
>I get the place where you're coming from - there are people who think the Before Sunrise movies are good too. they're wrong as well. there's really no point in arguing, you're stuck with the set of assumptions you have and you'll be an easy mark for future entries in the pseudointellectual indy trash subgenre. I'll stick with Bergman and Kubrick thanks.
The irony speaks for itself. The list indeed does go on!!!
>>63383731
Go back to reddit
>>63386188
>Saying something doesn't make it so
wow
>>63386904Faggot.
>>63385461
>i am a dumb retard who cannot into reading comprehension
i hope you get cancer you fucking illiterate shithead.
>>63384440
The Aviator, Blood Diamond, Catch me If you Can, Wolf of Wallstreet, Django Unchained, The Departed, What's Eating Gilbert Grape
>>63388517
Errr... no. Just no.
>>63384056
It´s okay considering it was propably the least oscarbait oscar winner in years.
