lmao, Brad Pitt did not deserve a best actor nomination...

[frederic_g54]

watch this vid and you be the judge:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100668766

[cagedwisdom]

I don't get it. So, because of the fact that Pitt's face was digitally replicated for a large part of the scenes that makes his acting any less good? The end result of both the voice (which in my opinion is the strongest part of his acting performance) and the emotions seen on screen are actually Brad Pitt, except the face has just been digitally replicated. I don't see how this undermines his performance in any way, it's still solid. That said, Rourke is going to walk away with it regardless. This quote from the article makes my point for me:

But even if it's not Pitt's actual head we're seeing, Digital Domain's executive producer of visual effects, Ed Ulbrich, says the performance is still his. Take the scene where the still-old Benjamin visits a faith healer in a church and gets out of his wheelchair and walks. Ulbrich says Pitt made choices as an actor that no animator would have thought of doing.

To be honest I think this makes it a lot more impressive (although I knew that digital images were in play on some level). Both the performance being this solid and it looking that good after this process is a pretty good feat.

[frederic_g54]

So has the filmmaking process become so revolutionary, actors can now sit in a chair in a studio pulling stupid faces and walk away with an oscar ? I guess you support James Cameron's statement "one day we won't even need actors anymore".

acting = performing, convergence of player and part, physically, emotionally,...

No offence, but once again, Pitt didn't deserve a nomination...

and as for Rourke, I hope be wins aswell , although I'm afraid Penn will win...

[Pickpocket]

It's just a nomination, Pitt isn't going to win. Rourke or Penn will get it. And I can't think of any other actor that deserved a nomination over Pitt. Wasn't exactly a great year for movies. The Reader, lol.

[cagedwisdom]

The Reader, lol.

Yeah, what a stinker. Only reason to watch it is the ludicrous amount of nudity.

[Pickpocket]

The Reader, lol.

Yeah, what a stinker. Only reason to watch it is the ludicrous amount of nudity.

Eh, seen Winslet naked like 5 times before. And she wasn't so saggy till now either =(

[cagedwisdom]

Winslet seems to get naked in 50% of the films she's in. Never really thought she was that good-looking in any case, but I needed something positive to get me through that film (other than Ralph Fiennes who I do like but failed to really stand out at all).

[frederic_g54]

I loved what Ricky Gervais said at the Golden Globes: "Where is she ? (looking at Winslet) aah told you, do a holocaust movie, you get awards"

I wish he'd host the oscars

[cagedwisdom]

Ricky Gervais is great.

Anyway, I still don't think you can fault an actor due to digital effects being used. Look at Andy Serkis' performance as Gollum. He provides the movement and the voice; but his entire person is replaced digitally afterwards. Is the acting performance any less good, or less impressive because of this? I'm not sure I get entirely why your definition of "acting" must be true.

Consider, for instance, voice-acting. Another business, sure, but they don't even supply anything of what you see on screen. Is this not acting?

[KGB]

Ricky Gervais is great.

I second that. And while we're on the topic, I admit I haven't seen the film, but don't you find it quite alarming and/or offensive that one of the films nominated for Best Film is a manipulative holocaust drama that takes matters out of context to make you sympathize with a war criminal?

Again, I haven't seen the film and I can't really give an opinion, but I still find this film, well, really out of place. If the premise was a little more cohesive and argumentative I'd ignore it, by all means, but from what I read so far about the film there is just no moral/artistic excuse for this twisted manipulation on the audience.