Picture: Home (53/5) [tie with Still Walking]
Director: Henry Selick, Coraline (63/4)
Actress: Isabelle Huppert, Home (48/6)
Actor: Mark Duplass, Humpday (68/7)
S. Actor: Zach Galifianakis, The Hangover (55/4)
S. Actress: Kirin Kiki, Still Walking (58/8)
Screenplay: Steve McQueen and Enda Walsh, Hunger (42/6)
Scene: Dancing soul, The Bad Lieutenant—Port of Call: New Orleans (42/4)
HISTORY:
Selick failed to place for James and the Giant Peach or Monkeybone. (Nightmare Before Christmas pre-dates the Skandies by two years.)
After a three-year absence, Huppert makes her 8th appearance in the top 20, making her one of the six most honored actors in Skandie history. (Only Kate Winslet and Philip Seymour Hoffman, with 9 and 13 respectively, have more; three others also have 8.) In chronological order:
#15, La Cérémonie (1996)
#8, The School of Flesh (1999)
#2, The Piano Teacher (2002)
#2s, 8 Women (2002)
#17, Time of the Wolf (2004)
#13s, I ♥ Huckabees (2004)
#4, Gabrielle (2006)
The other actors make their debut, as do McQueen and Walsh.
33 comments:
Great job, fellow HOME voters.
I'm surprised by Galifianakis's nod here. He was clearly meant to be the Bill Murray or John Belushi of the cast, but to me he was always off the mark, comedically. I don't think I laughed at him once.
That poster for Home is better than the actual movie.
I'm surprised to see Zach, too, but pleasantly. He was the only part of The Hangover that worked for me. I found his delivery flawless, esp. when explaining how his grandfather died in WWII (not a fresh joke, but the way he delivered it busted me up) and, good grief, his "Coffee Bean" was comedy gold.
Very happy to see Mark Duplass, too, and not just because I voted for him. I'm iffy on the mumblecore genre in general (which HUMPDAY barely fits in), partly due to the self-conscious acting that's passed off as lo-fi authentic.
It's hard to think of a more genuine, unaffected and believable performance this year than what Duplass did here.
I got more laughs out of a single cut-away to Jonah Hill's baffled face in SUPERBAD than I got from Galifianakis's entire perf.
Seriously, what?
Only had Duplass and Kiki here, the latter of whom should've finished in the top 10. Not a huge fan of HOME, but my, what a gorgeous one-sheet.
Am baffled by any attention The Hangover is getting, but I'm with Nictate: Zach's performance was the only thing I liked about the film. His discomfort almost seemed like a discomfort with actually being in the film, which would be awesome.
Oh, amend that. Had Isabelle on my ballot as well. Good job, other voters.
I didn't vote for anything that has shown up here yet. I assume mine are all coming in the top ten somewhere...
I'm baffled that people found room for Galifianakis in the stacked Supporting Actor category.
You can mostly blame Jeff "I love weird shit nobody else cares about so it's all 30-point Hail Mary bombs for me!" Lambert for Galifianakis.
I would have thought more folks recognized Duplass' astonishing improvisational skill, but given some of the bland performances that finished up top, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.
I think a lot of people care about Zach in The Hangover, bud. It was one of the highest grossing motion pictures of the year. The "weird shit nobody else cares about" is called Home (which I personally regret missing btw).
Remember when Zach mispronounced "retard"? That was so funny. Also when he fell down, it was funny because he's fat.
Well, sure, but by "nobody else" I meant "nobody else in the AVB." Come on bud you've told me yourself you employ the 30-point vote in order to have some impact on the results. Success!
Fuck yes HOME was awesome. I hope Olivier Gourmet pops up later with a Best Actor nod. Because he deserves to.
Also, I gotta admit that Zach G. was the only thing keeping me from leaving THE HANGOVER. If anything, he felt like the only part of the film with any sense of timing and it was the rest of the cast and crew who were a beat behind, as thought they were all actually hung over while trying to make the damn thing. But that's just my take.
I took Jeff's point to be just as much "how did Galafianakis get to be 'weird shit' when it's one of the year's biggest hits."
It's not like we're talking about him throwing 30-point Hail Mary bombs to TROUBLE EVERY DAY or TRASHUMPERS or POLICE, ADJECTIVE or ANTICHRIST (being careful to pick at least some films I like) -- stuff that IS weird and WOULD send Non-Hard-Core-Cinephiles fleeing from the theater. Every NHCC of my acquaintance who has seen THE HANGOVER think Galafianakis's performance was hilarious and the film's high point.
Doesn't mean they are right, of course. But it does rule out tout court claims that Jeff is just indulging his jones for weird shit. (You did notice that I also voted for Nick G., despite being Jeff's polar opposite in the two ways relevant here -- indulgence for "weird shit" and self-consciously trying to affect the outcome by point-loading?)
I'm not sure what part of "weird within the context of the AVB" you didn't understand. I realize The Hangover was a monster hit, but it is not remotely well-liked by my crew, and indeed without Jeff's 30 pts. Galifianakis would have come nowhere near the top 20, finishing 38th.
Well put, Victor. Indeed my "jones for weird shit" was in giving Damon Packard 30 points for MOCK UP ON MU! (no chance! but earnest). Well deserved those points. As are Galafianakis's.
Mike just hates the passion, loves the minor accumulation of accolades. I like stuff big and hard (and actually this year toned it down with lots of 20s and 15s for stuff that has no hope at all).
It just comes down to I could not stop laughing at the Galafianakis. I guess that is just not acceptable. Like masturbating on an airplane.
Let me just say that my objection to Galifianakis has nothing to do with hardcore cinephila. He's. Just. Not. Funny. At. All. I know funny fat guys. He's not a funny fat guy. And the movie he's in sucks donkey balls.
Sorry, bud. You think Jonah Hill is funny.
Our funny are on different planets.
I'm not sure what part of "weird within the context of the AVB" you didn't understand.
The part where you actually wrote "I love weird shit nobody else cares about," the plain meaning of which isn't "the context of the AVB." Arguably "nobody else," as a term about the vox populi, can be limited by audience context. But "weird shit," at face value anyway, isn't such a term.
Unless your point is simply true by definition based on a nominalist-populist understanding of weirdness -- that is, since only 4 people voted for Galifianakis, it's thereby "weird shit." In which case, I eagerly await your denunciations of Andersson's table trick, Selick's direction (and anything else with only 4 votes) as "weird shit nobody else cares about."
Okay, but there's no point in returning to what I originally said after I'd already clarified it. Within the context of this group of voters, it is "weird" to think Galifianakis was awesome, just as loving Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side would qualify as "weird" in this context. (She did not place.)
I did not give points to Sandra Bullock.
Actually, no ... liking THE HANGOVER was not a statistical anomaly among the AVB. I just looked it up on Crix Pix. Of the 26 Skandies-invitees who submitted Crix Pix votes (my apologies if I missed someone), 11 are pro/PRO, 12 are mixed, and just 3 are con/CON.
So thinking that the "character" role in a film that was, in general, mildly liked -- it's just not eccentric or weird.
Adams pro
Bowman pro
Cowen pro
D'Angelo mixed
Ebiri PRO
Frazer pro
Heilman CON
Jacobson mixed
Kreitzer pro
Malade CON
McCloud pro
Morton PRO
Murphy mixed
Murray pro
Odell mixed
Overbeck pro
Panayides mixed
Pittillo con
Prigge mixed
Ralston mixed
Reiher pro
Renshaw mixed
Rothkopf mixed
Stults mixed
Tobias mixed
Wright mixed
MuseMalade is the outlier, not me, the turk and mclush
Give it up. Your own statistics demonstrate that a majority of those people did not like the film. Galifianakis only placed due to one 30-point vote; he otherwise would have been a distant 38th. (This is true of nothing else that has placed thus far.) I stand by my assessment that he appears here primarily due to Jeff's penchant for giving maximum points to films/actors few if any others were excited about, which is demonstrably true in this case.
Give it up. Your own statistics demonstrate that a majority of those people did not like the film.
No, because you're wrong.
People who liked the film outnumbered people who disliked it 11-3. That is a stat in no way distorts anything,as I'll explain.
True, the largest single group (12) is "mixed," but "mixed" generally means "didn't like or dislike simpliciter," or "liked and disliked in about equal proportions," or something like that. Hence "mixed."
It is deeply misleading to do what you did -- lump "mixed" with "con/CON." It is no more a-priori rational than lumping with pro/PRO. Indeed, if one were to slice the salami that way, one would say, truthfully though also misleadingly, that "only 3 out of 26 disliked the film." Which makes a far greater statistical anomaly of disliking the film than even your deck-stacking does of liking the film.
The AVB consensus on THE HANGOVER was "liked tepidly." Learn it. Live it. Love it.
And in any event ... given that we're talking about a single element within the film, not the whole film, the Skandies are filled every year with elements in films that are best otherwise mediocre, like zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzGUGGEINHEIM!!!zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I look forward to your denunciation of those also. So even of the AVB's collective judgment is that the hangover was low-pro or mixed-pro (the fairest way to put it), that doesn't make picking out a single element in it to be eccentric or require a jones for weird shit.
Listen to Ryan ... he hates the film more than you do, and he didn't wanna pursue your claim against Jeff.
Galifianakis only placed due to one 30-point vote; he otherwise would have been a distant 38th.
Undoubtedly. Yet since we're only looking at #19 and #20 so far, I suspect that most of these "nominees" would not have placed in the Top 20 either but for the largest vote they received. And yet only Zack G. gets "blamed" on anyone. Funny how it's "just the Passiondex" sometimes, and other times...
I came pretty close to giving Zach G. points. THE HANGOVER was pretty great. That is all.
This is getting ridiculous. Putting aside the question of what "mixed" means (my own "mixed" for the film was little more than acknowledgment of the occasional funny bit; my rating was 48/100, which would be 'con' if I were forced to go binary), The Hangover currently ranks 104th out of 184 films on the Crix Pix list. Well in the bottom half. Yes, that includes some voters who aren't Skandie voters, but still, it was not generally very well liked.
You are of course correct that that doesn't preclude one performance in it from being regarded as terrific. But the fact remains that without Jeff's 30 points, he's a distant also-ran. Noting that the other performances at #19 and #20 would have failed to place were their largest vote subtracted is pure sophistry. Most of those would then fall to #22 or #23, not # freakin' 38.
Never mind Zach Mulligatawney, who struck me as a bit too convinced of his own hilariousness to be very funny - the REAL question is what's "Dancing Soul" doing all the way down at No. 19? I realise that voters feel they need to spread the wealth around and can only vote for one scene from BAD LT., but I'll be sorry to see those iguanas place higher. Unless of course nothing else is going to place from BAD LT., in which case I would have to ask What The Fuck Is Wrong With You People.
All the way *down*? Watching that clip made me happy to have missed BL: POCNO...
shut up baaab.
This argument is stoopid.
A. Jeff has no way of knowing who else is voting for what.
B. Despite the generally tepid response to The Hangover, Zach G. has consistently been singled out as the highlight, and has indie-comic cred far in excess of any other performer in the film. It would not be beyond reason for Jeff to expect that others might've send substantial points ZG's way. Of course, why should he care?
C. Mike's main complaint here, really, is against the 30-point award, which clearly irks him as a statistical anomaly. But these are the rules.
D. If somebody threw 30 points toward one of Mike's personal causes, vaulting (say) Home into the top ten or Humpday into the top five, I doubt we'd be having this conversation. Mike has made no secret about the fact that he is very disappointed in this year's results, and the AVB. Um, sorry bud. Democracy's a bitch.
This argument is stoopid.
Yes. However:
Mike's main complaint here, really, is against the 30-point award, which clearly irks him as a statistical anomaly.
I'm not sure how this misapprehension arose. All you have to do is look at my votes from past years to see that I'm someone who tends to throw most of my weight behind one or two choices per category—maybe not usually the full 30, but certainly 20+ and frequently 25+. (I did give Afterschool 30 this year, but then it is my 3rd favorite film of the past ten years.) I'm in no way opposed to Passiondex-style voting.
All I said was, if you're shocked to find Galifianakis here, as several were, blame Jeff Lambert, because over half the total points were his. That is a fact. It's also a fact that Jeff makes more use of the full 30 points than any other member of the AVB. I made ostensibly humo(u)rous reference to this, which big deal imo. I have no beef with his vote (though I personally didn't find Zach G. terribly funny), but I truly don't see any difference between throwing a 30-bomb at Galafianakis and throwing one at, say, Charlotte Gainsbourg in The Science of Sleep, as Jeff did three years ago. It's what he does. That's all I was saying.
I'm very happy to see HOME crack the top 20, even if it just missed the tail end of my own ballot. I would never have heard of this film if it weren't for MDA and the AVB (and would never have seen it at all if the internet wasn't so giving.) Thanks to all.
I should say that I'm sad to see my beloved STILL WALKING and Kirin Kiki this low, but truthfully I'm happy to see them at all. Good job other buds.
Like so much of BL:POCNO, the dancing soul scene is better described than experienced. I don't understand this film. Is it intentionally trying to be a lame police procedural or does it just not care?
Nictate's comments on mumblecore ("self-conscious acting that's passed off as lo-fi authentic") pretty much sum up how I feel about her beloved Duplass performance. Self-satisfied and trying too hard, he's got a great future in sitcoms. What MDA refers to as his "astonishing improvisational skill" comes across to me as a desperation to fill the silence. Restraint, please.
As someone who has trained in comedy improv for several years, I can attest to Duplass's chops. He is downright gifted.
One of the tricks of the best improvisers is to not play for laughs. The biggest laughs come from what's played real, because the audience recognizes real and it feels good.
Duplass plays real in HUMPDAY with a Midas touch. And he wasn't always that skilled. His performance in HANNAH TAKES THE STAIRS fits Don's complaint, making it even more impressive he's honed his skillz to this level.
As far as the soul dancing scene in BAD LT., I felt mixed on seeing it at #19. Of course, I want that nutbar glorious film to be honored any chance it gets, but that scene was one of the few times I felt the movie was straining too much.
Ironically, my comment about Duplass' astonishing improvisational skill referred not to some ability to pull great lines out of his ass but to how uncannily relaxed and natural he seems at all times. Don't even know what you're talking about when you call for restraint. Rarely have I seen a performance that so closely resembles behavior I've witnessed in life.
Fucking awesome poster.
Post a Comment