Clouds of Sils Maria won’t be released until next year but it looks like we have our first Oscar contender for 2016 with Kristen Stewart in the supporting category. No word yet on whether or not that will also include Juliette Binoche in lead – but if we have another year like we just had she should have no problem getting in. Stewart has been buzzed for months now after the film showed in Cannes.
2025 Oscar Predictions: Clint Eastwood Rising
Despite the many films in release this year, there are just a small handful that are actually good movies. Of...
Read moreDetails
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
If people are saying Stewart is as good as she was in Still Alice, then I probably wouldn’t be impressed. I don’t think she brought much to Still Alice and I still saw the vacant dead eyes and cool girl but trying too hard to not be involved expression she always has. Plus, she was so flat. Even in that scene where her actress character was in that play was so flat. For a split second, I thought Moore’s character was using her alzheimers to pretend to not know her as to not say something negative about that performance.
Why not?
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Birdman
Selma
Whiplash
Boyhood
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything
American Sniper
Robert, thanks for directing me to Nathaniel Rogers (in another thread). His Birdman podcast (http://thefilmexperience.net/blog/2014/11/2/podcast-birdman-pride-and-nightcrawler.html) with 1-2 people who also didn’t like the movie (for the same reasons as others) answered most of my questions. He (and the other guy who liked it) came up with specific and convincing arguments as to what they thought the movie was saying, and addressed some of the other specific criticisms in the process, which is what I wanted to hear. I’m at peace at last… 🙂 I just need to watch Birdman one more time now, to form some definitive conclusions, see if I still love it and disagree with its critics.
Big thanks to everybody who answered my plea!
“Claudiu, oh, come on, don’t play the martyr! You’re practically begging me to sympathize with you and to throw compliments your way just to make you feel good again.”
If only it were that simple…
“Let’s not forget: Birdman is an Oscar frontrunner, it has a metacritic value of 89, if anyone sucks, it’s people like me, who are not able to recognize the brilliance that is obvious to the majority.”
OK, I can’t counter that logically – I can never counter your arguments, so no surprise there. What I don’t get is HOW… How can some critics see this movie as pretentious, and some not? I heard one say that this depends a lot on what levels of pretension one is willing to accept, and I like that explanation, but it still doesn’t explain how they can interpret the MESSAGE (which they don’t disagree on, they just disagree on its worth) so differently, like some thinking it’s deep and interesting, and others, like yourself, thinking it’s shallow and uninteresting. I just can’t wrap my head around that.
“…meanwhile Claudiu forgets that he, Claudiu, is a very smart supporter of Birdman who is doing a very fine job of defending it.”
Thanks, Ryan, you’re always nice to me… And I have probably done a decent job of defending Birdman’s cohesion, the fact that it IS saying something, and saying it well. But I’ve hit this brick wall when it comes to whether what it’s saying is worthwhile, or just pretentious, fake, unoriginal. I have my opinion, but I can’t find a single person who will tell me WHY I could be right to have that opinion, and everybody who doesn’t is making so much sense. Which is why I feel so out of the loop on this.
Claudiu says, “the smart Birdman supporters just haven’t truly defended the movie yet…”
…meanwhile Claudiu forgets that he, Claudiu, is a very smart supporter of Birdman who is doing a very fine job of defending it.
truth.
🙂
I’m too confused about the whole Birdman situation to do this ranking now. 🙁 Besides, I’ll do it later, when Academy voting begins – I’ll do my annual simulation of the preferential vote, here and at IMDb, and I’ll vote too, of course.
Claudiu, be strong with your own conviction (which i know you can be) and allow that there are points of view across a 360 degrees about any subjective form such as a movie. In the same way that stats can go a long way towards pre-empting what a bunch of people will overall reward; it is never definitive a process. I liked Birdman very much, but as it often seems to be, apples get compared to oranges when awards such as these are dissected. To compare films as disparate as Birdman and Boyhood and Imitation Game et al, it boils down to individual taste, perceptions, a powerful narrative for why it is the race in the first place, that propels the frontrunners into position. When deciding on what is best; the ‘critic’ within all of us kicks in and often tears down one great movie in deference to building up another great one.
Gah! Please don’t hold me to these rankings, just in case I one day change my mind and rankings. But, I suppose I would rank the BP nominees like this:
1. Boyhood – Seen 3 times
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel – Seen 2 times
—
3. Birdman – Seen 1 time
4. American Sniper – Seen 1 time
5. Selma – Seen 1 time
6. The Imitation Game – Seen 1 time
—
The Theory of Everything – Have not seen yet
Whiplash – Have not seen yet
Let’s close the voting now while Boyhood is ahead!
Ok, and here’s mine:
1. Boyhood
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Selma
4. Whiplash
—- (the four above are FAR above the rest of the field!)
5. The Theory of Everything
6. American Sniper
7. Birdman
8. The Imitation Game
“Like what you like and don’t listen to anyone else.”
I don’t care what others think, per se. What I care about is what I think, and seeing all the smart people make very strong arguments against the movie (and I guess there are exceptions, like Antoinette, but my point here is that they, the smart Birdman supporters, just haven’t truly defended the movie yet, they haven’t convinced me I’m right, like the others have convinced me I might just be wrong – nobody has given me an explanation for how it could even be valid to think, as I do, that this movie is neither pretentious, nor shallow, which makes me feel very ignorant and/or naive for thinking so, and what else AM I to think, under the circumstances?…), and not being able to really understand or share their point of view – that doesn’t make me think good things about myself.
“What a sad rude ugly portrait Birdman paints of critics”
Actually, that’s one thing I CAN talk about, because it’s not my idea I’ll be reproducing – I listened to a podcast by some critic (don’t know who, but I can probably figure it out from my history, if I have to) and he specifically said that this part of the movie rang very true with him, because he knew for a fact his fellow critics were actually doing things like that (writing reviews long before seeing certain movies) – he gave the example of Transformers (whatever the latest one is), for which he said everybody (his word) wrote their reviews last summer (so, in 2013, I guess he meant). I’m not going to comment on what this means, if anything – I’m not qualified -, I’m just paraphrasing it.
Okay, Bryce has opened the floodgates. The annual “how would you rank the BP nominees” game.
Robert A’s preferential ballot:
1) Boyhood
2) Birdman
3) The Grand Budapest Hotel
4) Selma
5) Whiplash
6) The Imitation Game
7) The Theory of Everything
8) American Sniper (ugh, ugh, ugh!)
I’ve only seen Kristen Stewart in that Snow White movie. I thought she was fine in that but I don’t have anything else to go on.
Don’t worry, Bryce. I’m just trying to toughen Ryan up before the coming trials.
Antoinette, yeah I suppose I want it to win, but as I said, I don’t care very much in the end. It’s my favorite of the year too. I know you’re a big fan of BIRDMAN’s so I hope you’re out of that substance you’re hitting people’s faces with.
I never did this, so I guess I should declare how I see the nominees in order of preference:
First Tier
1. BOYHOOD
2. SELMA
3. THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL
4. WHIPLASH
Second Tier
5. BIRDMAN
Third Tier
6. THE IMITATION GAME
7. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
8. AMERICAN SNIPER
So, Kristen has obviously enough talent to convince people who “matter” that she is a good actress. It doesn’t really matter how some haters will always dislike her , just as long as she gets “love” from them (her peers, critics, awards’s members..), she’s walking away from all that Twilight stigma (Snow White didn’t help either) and I think it’s just a matter of time before she scores an oscar nod, but I doubt it will be for this (since IFC is not going to campaign).
Before anybody says “oh well, she hasn’t been oscar nominated”, her only real time in the race has been for Still Alice for which she didn’t even campaign for it, and being “snubbed” one time certainly doesn’t mean she won’t get it ever.
*hits Ryan in the face with a banana cream pie*
@Bryce So BOYHOOD is your favorite of what’s nominated or your favorite favorite?
Excellent discussion, folks. I’m 100% team BOYHOOD this awards season, and as I’ve previously made clear I liked BIRDMAN a lot but not that much, I said it here shortly after I saw it for the first time and I left it off my designations of the Essential Titles, 2014 Edition — I know, I know, huge deal around these parts. I did this before it surprisingly (to me anyways) won the PGA. Yet somehow I haven’t found it necessary to argue with y’all like I did last season, or the LINCOLN/LES MIZ/ARGO debacle, that one was an ugly year if I recall correctly. I was team LINCOLN, not that impressed with ZERO DARK THIRTY (and remain so), fervently anti-LE MIZ, and profoundly and vocally disillusioned with the ARGO/Affleck/Clooney/Heslov clusterfuck of backhanded charm and suave debauchery — not a comfortable position!
Well, Kristin Stewart will have to do way more than this to get a Oscar. She’s still a mediocre actress for me.
Most people know that Michael Keaton is not a mediocre actor
Compared to Ed Norton, Keaton does not measure up.
That’s my opinion. Looks like you have a different opinion. Hopefully this won’t wreck our friendship.
Well, Keaton is playing a washed-up, mediocre actor. It’s hard to tell how much he is acting, I guess… I think he suits the role, though, but it’s just not a very interesting character (script-wise), and you could say that Keaton is maybe the right embodiment of that (?) The unintelligence of the character annoyed me, like when Norton tells him that prestige/slutty cousin line, he’s clueless. Which is kind of sad, because that’s a VERY clear metaphor!
Most people know that Michael Keaton is not a mediocre actor. Hugs not drugs, Ryan.
Claudiu, you knew from my silence all day yesterday that I probably didn’t have a lot of newly-discovered insights into Birdman that I was keeping bottled up. 🙂
But Claudiu — and everyone else who likes Birdman — it makes no difference what I think or what the Academy thinks (and regarding Birdman, I think it’s clear the Academy and I are not seeing eye to eye). The only think that should matter to any of us is LIKING THE MOVIES WE LIKE AND LOVING THE MOVIES WE LOVE.
There is no point in trying to convince other people to like the same things we like — no point and scant possibilty. I’m never going to get benutty to see what millions of people live about Boyman. He’s never going to get me to see what he and millions of others loves about Birdman.
Claudiu, you helped me get another angle on Birdman with your level-headed advocacy. I still don’t like it much, but I found some things to like about it. You helped me hate it less, so I thank you for that.
Listen to Antoinette because she is one of the most pragmatic and most happily stubbornly independent minds we have at AD: Like what you like and don’t listen to anyone else.
Please keep drawing your energy from the engine of your own enthusiasm and don’t ever let me or anyone else dissuade you into allowing that enthusiasm to drain away.
“Did that second viewing help you sort out how to feel about this curious movie?”
Couple of things I liked better (namely, Ed Norton and Emma Stone — I wish the whole movie had been about them. They’re the only characters who remotely look like real human beings to me). But sorry to say, the bulk of Birdman I liked even less on 2nd clear-eyed viewing, and I made special effort to clear my head of all my preconceived grumbling from the first time around. It revealed itself to me to be thinner and more contrived. The closer I look the less I see. It’s funny watching people say things like “it has to be cliche because audiences can’t grasp complexity — why, look at Shakespeare!” … erm, yes, because Shakespeare is a perfect example of cliche writing that lacks complexity. …??
I didn’t find the rooftop scenes between Stone and Norton to be cliche at all. I thought they were the only natural scenes in the whole movie. The only scenes I believed.
The problem with the uniformly terrific actors in the cast, for me, was a sad reminder that Michael Keaton is a mediocre actor and everyone in the cast acted rings around him.
julian the emperor, I agree with with your assessment that there is nothing brave about Keaton and Norton taking on these roles. The movie itself makes the ugly and dubious point several times that actors “have no self-respect” and their job is a constant “humiliaton.”
But gosh, ouch, Inarritu casting Keaton as a clumsy mediocre actor Riggan and casting Norton as a much better actor who instantly demonstrates his professional and artistic superiority in their very first scene together… yeesh, poor Michael Keaton, who must surely be aware what this stunt casting implied and what it was saying about Riggan and Keaton both, yikes, just seems nasty to me and not at all impressive (actor-wise or career-wise)… in fact it reminds me uncomfortably of John Waters casting Divine in Pink Flamingos. Lucky there were no dog turds in the curb when Keaton did his tighty-whitey prance through Times Square — although he did get to walk barefoot through back-alley stagnant sewage water, maybe that was clean water in reality.
What an ugly portrait of the acting profession Birdman paints. What an ugly portrait of stupid audiences who would applaud such a ridiculously and deliberately junk play. What a sad rude ugly portrait Birdman paints of critics and managers and theater staff, and what an ugly farce it tries to make of Theater itself.
Hate to say, but what a sad commentary on any desperately sad actor who finds Birdman to be flattery and not a crude humiliating insult to their profession. How sad that there are apparently so many actors who fall for Birdman as faux tribute to talent when all it really shows is how badly the theater* chews up mediocre pretenders and wrecks their pretentious little lives.
*( (and the acting profession, and of course, by extention, Hollywood. Maybe it’s because actors and especially Academy actors can convince themselves that “hey, I won the very same trophy Meryl Streep has won so I’m sort of on the same level of Ms. Streep? …nope, half the members of the Academy are legendary talents and the other half are flash-in-the-pan has-beens who got lucky with a movie or two and then that was it because the rest of their careers were wankery and hackery. So that’s why we see the Academy making brilliant choices on the one hand and embarrassing choices in the other hand. Simple. Because half the Oscar voters are brilliant and the other half are embarassments.)
1. I am not a fan of Kristen Stewart.
2. I think she doesn’t have the depth compared to others we have right now.
3. I haven’t seen Clouds of Sils Maria but I’m looking forward to see it.
4. I like Stewart’s performance in Still Alice and her scenes with Julianne Moore the the most special in the film.
5. I would like to commend her for taking these kinds of roles and look forward to seeing her grow more in her craft.
“I suck, therefore I don’t get to talk about these movies. I’ll let those who do qualify (and also care) do so. I see no other way for me to (at least make an attempt to) find out what the truth of the matter is, if such a thing exists.”
Claudiu, oh, come on, don’t play the martyr! You’re practically begging me to sympathize with you and to throw compliments your way just to make you feel good again.
BUT, you know what? I’m going to anyway (and I sincerely mean it): Listen, you don’t suck. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Let’s not forget: Birdman is an Oscar frontrunner, it has a metacritic value of 89, if anyone sucks, it’s people like me, who are not able to recognize the brilliance that is obvious to the majority.
Besides (and this is the important part, really): You’re perfectly able to express your opinions, and you do it with clarity and precision, so stop beating yourself up about this.
It’s not hard to guess that Ryan still hates it. Like I said, every person that can form a coherent argument about the actual meaning/depth (or lack thereof) of the movie hates it, it’s a rule. A very powerful stat, not broken since the movie came out.
“I’m not a big fan (clearly) of Inarritu”
Like I said before, I’m not either, except for this movie. But I’m irrelevant, I don’t feel qualified to enter this discussion, according to the rule above. Everything I find to be meaningful in Birdman seems to be easily dismissed by anybody who can form any coherent thoughts in response. Just like with American Beauty. I suck, therefore I don’t get to talk about these movies. I’ll let those who do qualify (and also care) do so. I see no other way for me to (at least make an attempt to) find out what the truth of the matter is, if such a thing exists.
Another thing (and then I’ll slowly disappear from the scene and leave it to the Birdman lovers, I promise…): I thought the casting of Keaton and Norton was inspired, but it’s very much another gimmick in The Year of the Gimmick (or so it seems… I’m not the one who started this, I regret it as much as anyone) as the 12 year conception of Boyhood. People think Keaton and Norton were brave for taking on these roles that obviously (even though Keaton is seemingly kind of oblivious to the fact, hence his promotional interviews) play on their own reputations, but is ‘brave’ the word for it, I wonder? I think it’s more to do with a healthy dose of self-insight, a quality that is sorely missing in most movie stars, so good on them. But, yes, inspired (if obvious) casting, indeed.
Claudiu: Have you read this piece by Scott Tobias? Now, THAT’S harsh!;)
https://thedissolve.com/reviews/1152-birdman/
Ryan: What about you? Did that second viewing help you sort out how to feel about this curious movie?
Claudiu: Good on you, for spreading my word:)
Now, seriously, me disliking parts of Birdman shouldn’t keep you sleepless. I truly liked aspects of it, and I said as much in the paragraphs you copy-pasted above. I’m not a big fan (clearly) of Inarritu, so maybe that influenced my snap judgments about whatever I found problematic about it on a first viewing. I will be revisiting it before the Oscars, because there are things I like to see sorted out in my brain before I make a final judgment. It is in many ways a riveting movie experience and I respect Inarritu for his mastery of several aspects of bringing that magic alive, no doubt about it.
You could find much more harsh critics of this movie than me (although that probably won’t make you feel any better…;))
(I hope the moderators let me post this, because I’m at my wits’ end, and I don’t know what else to do here…)
OK – I have a challenge for you guys! 🙂 I need the help of some Birdman fans, if there are any here (that feel strongly enough about it to help me out)… It seems every thinking person in this world hated this movie, and for mostly the same reasons (which will be given below). I loved it, but I’m simply not smart enough to be able to counter these people’s arguments effectively, or even figure out whether they are clearly right about the movie sucking, and I am clearly wrong, or if it’s, at least, dependent on the person, and not a fault of the movie itself.
I feel stupid that I simply can’t hate the movie too, like all the cool kids, so I’m going to try one last, desperate thing: let other people, smarter than I, try to see if they can come up with a good rebuttal to this person’s comments on the movie, which, I believe, reflect rather well pretty much everybody’s criticisms of it. I’m sorry if you think this means I can’t think for myself – maybe you’re right, even though you should know I’ve tried, and I just can’t find the arguments, but don’t FEEL, in my heart of hearts, that I should just be giving up on this movie, and start hating it like everybody else. Which is why I’m asking for your help… Can anybody, please, help me?
The person who wrote the initial comment will, of course, be able to counter any arguments brought forth to defend Birdman, should there be any (I’m hoping against hope). I will confirm the person’s identity, should they decide to come forth and defend their point of view, which I believe they will, since they seem to feel rather strongly about it, as does everybody else who hates the movie. I hope they can forgive me my little indiscretion (not asking for permission), but, if they can’t, they should at least know that I take these things to heart, and I have been very upset by all of the hate this movie has been receiving. I’m not doing this for fun, or to try to play a sick joke on anybody… Besides, the post is public, so I could have just linked to it instead. I just think this is better for all those involved.
Here is the comment in question, word for word, edited only as far as spacing of paragraphs goes, to avoid that the poster be TOO easily identified, in case they should wish to avoid it:
“I still don’t really like it, despite all of the technical flair with which it’s executed (and the ensemble doing pretty much exemplary work). What I see is still a script laden with pretension heavy as lead. I don’t think the writing is anywhere near as inspired as some of the technical marvels at display. There are numerous examples: The most satiric moments in the movie (the scene with the critics for example) is a cheap shot (that Barthes allusion is pointless and not very well executed), the rendezvous at the bar with the theater critic is a parody (I only accept it as somehow valid if the entire movie is seen through the prism of Riggan’s madness, and that’s not really interesting to me, because he’s not an interesting character to begin with, an ignoramus, basically, but an ignoramus devoid of comical meaning – as a case study his is more tedious than tragic).
Everything Inarritu says about modern life (the usual qualms of the contrarian) is so basic to invite only a shrug. He doesn’t say anything that I would consider challenging or deep. He says whatever is expected of the modern-day contrarian who views Hollywood with disdain and thinks social media have a corrosive influence on our everyday existence, our ability to be in sync with ourselves and the reality at hand. Whether he is right or not, is not really important. It doesn’t enhance the art, it only enhances his agenda.
The problem with Birdman ultimately is this: It’s a movie that so obviously pines for seriousness, but in a deceptively light form (the comic aspect of the movie), it’s trying to deliver a message but at the same time trying to obscure that message so it seems shrouded in ambiguity. But Inarritu at heart is not an ambiguous filmmaker, he is a didactic, message-driven filmmaker. His technical solutions are well-executed this time around, but the core of his movie is the same old Inarritu: ‘The world is fucked, but I have figured out what’s wrong. Now go, follow me!’ To me, that’s not interesting. I want artists probing questions, not pointing to solutions.”
It would have been great if you had bothered to mention who the previous nominee was.
I see some people discrediting her for her nom.Though American actresses rarely do French films,what we have to remember here is that the french academy has a good chance to ignore her like every other American awards do.But they got out of their tradition to nominate a young American actress for a foreign language(English) performance instead of nominating any other French actress.This alone shows that they were impressed enough to nominate her.It’s one thing to criticize her for her acting but entirely another to discredit her impressive feat.The Irony is that most of these people who are commenting on her acting in this film may not have even seen the film.
AL, I’m not seeing how that Simpson’s excerpt relates at all. KEIFER is spot on, her acting range is A to B at most. The Twilight films are not a lone occurrence, she’s been just as terrible in others as well. They could have picked much better for Snow White both in terms of acting ability and beauty. Emma Watson for instance is leagues ahead of Kristen Stewart in both departments…
Personally, I don’t like her work that much. She nearly ruined “Snow White and the Huntsman” for me. To quote Dorothy Parker, “She has an acting range from A to B”.
And even though I don’t like her, I do very much like Juliette Binoche – so I’ll give this film a chance and go see it.
Yay, good for Kristen! I’d love nothing more than for her to shed the “Twilight” skin she’s been wearing for years. She’s not a bad actress, just often times misunderstood. Cheers for her!
Are you guys advocating for another DAY FOR NIGHT scenario? Is Assayas the new Truffaut? Most certainly not! ==> [thread invalidated]
Nat gonna happen!
Love her, think she’s strong in the film. But this film? With this release date? Expect a Tilda Swinton in Snowpiercer style showing with critics’ awards at best.
@The Great Dane
This year you have Scarlett Johansson in Lucy, Annette Bening in The Search, Chloe Grace Moretz in Sils Maria. Roman Polanski’s The Ghost Writer and Carnage were nominated but none of its actors were and The Fifth Element got 8 noms, but none for its lead actress.
The point is we shouldn’t diminish Kristen Stewart’s accomplishment. They obviously liked her in it and they nominated her. I think after this, we can all agree that she is not such a bad actress.
A few thoughts.
1. I like Kristen Stewart, so I wouldn’t mind seeing her succeed in terms of award recognition
2. Clouds of Sils Maria sounds like a cousin of Jupiter Ascending.
3. If she’s that good in it, I might want to see it
4. LCBaseball22, your last comment here reminded me of Homer Simpson calling his wife’s cooking “Shake and Bake”
Marge: Who wants pork chops?
Homer: [carefully tastes the food] Sorry Marge, I’m afraid this gets my lowest rating ever. Seven thumbs up.
Marge: You always liked my pork chops.
Homer: Marge, I’m sorry, but your cooking’s only got two moves: Shake and Bake.
Marge: You like Shake n’ Bake. You used to put it in your coffee.
Homer: People change, Marge. My palate has grown more sophisticated.
Marge: Oh yeah, what’s a palate?
Homer: Oh … it’s a … special time in a boy’s life when … got to go! [rushes out]
5. In terms of the New England Patriots, boy I hope you’re right that they lose. I hope they lose worse than the Denver Broncos did last Super Bowl.
Is it April Fool’s already? This is a joke, right? Kristen Stewart has a single range of emotion/expression and is literally one of the worst actresses of all time…
I’d say her odds of even being nominated for an Oscar are about as good as the Patriots winning the Super Bowl on Sunday without cheating, which is slim to none!
That’s great news for Stewart. She has the same rocker-chick look in the film that she does in “Still Alice”, so it’s more up her alley, and she’s great in it (and Binoche is amazing too, obviously).
But before we begin thinking that this is one of the greatest American performances by an actress in 30 years, how often DO American actresses star in French films? Like, really? Do they ever? Well, Jodie Foster wasn’t nominated for a Cesar for “A Very Long Engagement” (Marion Cotillard was the only supporting actress nominated for the film, and she won), so in that regard Stewart has done better than Foster.
For example, all the Amercan actors and actresses nominated in Denmark every time Lars von Trier makes a new movie never go on to be nominated for Oscars anymore, even if they win in Cannes (Kirsten Dunst ), and let’s see if Sils Maria even makes an impact in its American release (and if the Academy is ready to “forgive her” for Twilight). But she SHOULD be a contender, at least. The scenes where she and Binoche rehearse the play together are simply electrifying. 🙂