Official RAZZIE® Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > General MOVIE & DVD Discussions > Disagree w/Any Past RAZZIES®??
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: THE SHINING AND SCARFACE
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

THE SHINING AND SCARFACE

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: THE SHINING AND SCARFACE
    Posted: August 12 2010 at 7:27pm
I just learned that The Shining was nominated for several Razzies...including Worst Actor, Picture, and (i think) Director! Al Pacino was also nominated for Worst Actor in Scarface, which I find hard to believe! The last remark may be up to debate, because most people either love or hate Pacino's performance in Scarface (there isnt much of a grey area). But as for The Shining....that seems to be by far the most unjustly nominated film ever targeted by the Razzies! Most people regard it as the best horror film ever made. Your thoughts, por favor...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Here's a LINK to the complete list of nominees for our berry first year, dis-honoring Worst Achievements in Film for 1980. Not sure what the source of your info was, but SHINING was NOT nominated as Worst Picture or Worst Actor. Shelley Duvall was nominated as Worst Actress for her screechy/one-note performance, and Kubrick was nominated as Worst Director. Our voting membership that first year was far smaller than it is now (it was about 50 people) many of whom had read and admired Stephen King's novel THE SHINING, and were understandably disappointed with the near total re-write Kubrick and his screenplay represented. As a novel, SHINING was intensely visual and cinematic, yet many of the most visually memorable sequences (among them a scene where topiary animals come to life and chase the Nicholson character) were simply left out or re-worked. I must admit that, among our 30 years of nominations, the one for Kubrick is one of the most often carped about. 

As for SCARFACE, Pacino's performance in the film (which was entirely re-dubbed and toned down after being laughed at in pre-release screenings) is utterly over-the-top and self-indulgent -- And Pacino himself seems to be aware of that fact. Opinion is thus split as to whether that nomination was deserved or not...  




FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 8:24pm
Hey, what can I tell you? To Razzie voters, those movies were just too hammy and overacting for their tastes. I mean come on, Pacino's performance in "Scarface" is so over the top, it's more comedic than dramatic. As for "Shining", hell, everyone frowned at that movie when it first came out. Like we've been discussing, Razzie memebers vote in the NOW, not what they think will be considered Razzie worthy decades later.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 12 2010 at 9:43pm
But the point of this forum is to argue wether they (the voters) were wrong in the decisions they made in the past. I'd almost  stake my life that most of the  voters regret their nominations for The Shining. I mean cmon, it's regarded as a masterpeice of psychological horror. I know they voted in the now, but that doesn't make them right years later, when we even have Roger Ebert writing an article on the film in his "Great Movies" books.  
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 13 2010 at 6:28pm
HeadRazz made his case. There were only 50 voters at the time, and most hated how Kubrick wasn't faithful to the source material. But again, these awards are just for parody, so I doubt anyone is losing sleep over how they voted 30 years ago. Not to mention Kubrick didn't win the award, nor did he get a single nod since, so it's not like he was getting the Stallone treatment.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 13 2010 at 8:29pm
I know it didn't hurt Kubrick's career or anything, I just still think it wasn't a good choice. Al Pacino is still up to debate, so I wont say anything more about that. Though Stephen King apparently thought the film was good, just unfaithful. But a film should be judged by how good it is, not how loyal. Gone with the Wind was very different from the book, yet that film was loved immediatly upon release... 

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Where did you get the idea that the movie of GONE WITH THE WIND was "very different from the book"??  If you had read or seen any of the dozens of books and documentaries about the making of GWTW (or read the novel itself) you'd know that remark is specious. In fact, producer David O. Sleznick drove everyone involved in making the film nuts with his insistence that the movie be slavishly faithful to the novel, whose book sales during the depression were a phenomenon. Even the casting of Clark Gable as Rhett Butler, forcing Selznick into a deal with his despised father-in-law M-G-M head Louis B. Mayer, was a concession to readers of the novel, who embraced the film precisely because it did follow the book closely.  

FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 13 2010 at 8:31pm
I personally think Shelly Duvall was good despite, her what you called her "one not performance." In an article from Roger Ebert, it is brought to light how painstaking Shelly Duvall was in preparing to do certain scenes. It's actually very interesting, if u like Ebert.
FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2010 at 10:51am
Also take note, many of the categories that first year had more than just five nods to them. I'm guessing if they were only five nods per category, Kubrick wouldn't have made it on the list. Due to the need to fill in a spot, he became the fall guy. But hey, I really can't tell for sure about an event that happened 30 years ago that I was not a part of.  
 
As for Al Pacino, no, there's no debate there. That performance is so damn over the top, it is comical! Sure, the movie is a cult classic now, but look at which group seems to love it the most: gangsta rappers. That's not exactly a high compliment for a movie's legacy if you ask me.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2010 at 2:25pm

I hope most people at the razzies like the shining though. Even if you don't love it, it is a film one can certainly admire. As for scarface, although i certainly think it is very overrated, I believe Pacino did over the top on purpose. The film starts out with Montana being this larger than life gangster sterostype, who we sort of root for in the beginning. He seems smart, and reminds people of the 1920's gangsters who for some reason were worshipped as heros. Even the title of the film is taken from Howard Hawk's Scarface. But then, later in the film, we see Tony for the villan he really is. He is vile, despicable, and unlovable. It sort of tears down the honor system in the Godfather films, and the hero worship of the classic gangster flicks, which is very interesting. So i think the performance was purposfully over the top. It destroyed our notions of the gangster film, and the notion that Al Pacino usually did low key, down to earth, and relatable performances (such as his performance in Serpico, and the Godfather Part 1).

FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 14 2010 at 6:26pm
Yeah, usually when Pacino overacts, it's because there's nothing really holding the rest of the movie up, so he is left with no choice but to chew up every scene because otherwise the movie is completely forgettable.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2010 at 9:16am
Here's some instances where Gone with the Wind differs from the novel:  
 

Of the many differences between the novel and the movie, the biggest is that in the novel Scarlett has a child by each of her husbands: "Wade" by Charles Hamilton, "Ella" by Frank Kennedy, and of course "Bonnie" by Rhett Butler.

Some supporting characters dropped from the novel are Will Benteen, a poor Confederate veteran who loves Carreen but marries Suellen; the colorful Mrs. Tarleton, mother of Brent and Stuart; Ashley's other sister Honey Wilkes, whose character is combined with India Wilkes in the movie; Ellen O'Hara's sisters Pauline and Eulalie; Melanie's and Charles' Uncle Henry Hamilton; Mrs. Elsing and Mrs. Whiting, two of the pillars of Atlanta society; and the servant Dilcey, former head woman at Twelve Oaks and the wife of Pork.

In the book they reverse some of the order of events with Melanie and Scarlett. After Scarlett and Charles Hamilton were engaged Scarlett went about planning her wedding specifically so it would be the day before Melanie's. (A very rude thing to do considering Melanie and Ashley were engaged first.) In the movie Melanie mentions her wedding was the day before. Another one is when they donate their wedding bands to "the Cause". In the book Scarlett throws her ring in the basket first. Melanie misreads the action, follows suit and later admiringly tells Scarlett she wanted to do it all along, but never would have had the guts if Scarlett hadn't done it first.

The main point I'm making is that a film shouldn't be judged by how loyal it may be to a certain book (unless basically the only similarity would be a title and a vauge, unsimilar plot), but rather if the film is good in general. Lord of the Rings is probably a better example. If the film thrills you, chills you, or is good in general....it shouldnt go under scruntiny from film critics. If its very loyal, great. If it is only a little loyal but still a good film, thats good too. Many of the scenes in the original novel wouldve been to hard to capture on film, especially since the Shining was made in 1980. For instance, evil walking animal grass sculptures anyone? I didn't think so!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The instances you site above regarding GWTW are mostly cases where minor characters were dropped for expediency's sake, not fundamental changes to characters or situations central to the story's principal characters or story arc. In general, GWTW is regarded as being a huge success precisely because it remained essentially faithful to the widely-read novel on which it was based.

And, in the case of THE SHINING, if technology did not exist to depict the "topiary chase" in 1980, perhaps Kubrick could have taken a lesson from James Cameron, who waited until technology caught up with his vision before attempting to film AVATAR...  

FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
ramonesun View Drop Down
Berry Important Member
Berry Important Member


Joined: August 10 2010
Location: PA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 70
Post Options Post Options   Quote ramonesun Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2010 at 9:19am
I think there was a lot going on in Scarface that didn't require him to overact, and the film had other great actors. It was a stylistic choice, reminiscent of the foul-mouthed, over-acted criminal portrayls of the 1930's gangster movies (although a much more violent, trash-talking update)...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: As I have pointed out elsewhere on this Forum, a fair number of our Voting Members that year (including myself) had actually seen dailies of Pacino as SCARFACE -- Before his ridiculous "Ricky Ricardo on Cocaine" portrayal had been entirely re-dubbed. I am sure this factored into his being a Worst Actor nominee...  

FILM CRITIC AT LARGE
Back to Top
BurnHollywoodBurn View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: February 03 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3557
Post Options Post Options   Quote BurnHollywoodBurn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 16 2010 at 12:10pm
LOL Hehe, "Ricky Ricardo on Cocaine"! So true! Clap 
 
So, ramonesun (or HeadRazz for that matter), what are you're opinions of the TV movie remake of "The Shining"?
 
And don't you love how this started with "Shining" and "Scarface" but then lead into "Gone With The Wind"? It's like starting with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "Manos: Hands Of Fate", but then leading into "Citizen Kane"!  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: The TV miniseries remake of SHINING (IMDb LINK) had problems of its own, not the least of them being that it never worked up the sense of dread and forboding so essential for King's story to work... 
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Back to Top
BlindFlyTheater View Drop Down
Berry New Comer
Berry New Comer


Joined: May 23 2011
Location: Rochester, NY
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1
Post Options Post Options   Quote BlindFlyTheater Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: May 23 2011 at 4:58pm
Shelly Duvall's performance was outstanding, IMHO. Her innards were hung on her sleeve month after month during filming, with Kubrick inflicting head games to keep her emotion at an exhausting fever pitch. I think she was forever damaged by the experience, having endured this extended period of isolation (filmed an Ocean away from home) and abuse.

As far as the Razzies slamming the film (specifically, Duvall and Kubrick), critics generally disliked  The Shining at the time it was made, so I don't blame them for that.


Back to Top
whatsthepoint View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2011
Location: Vermont
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 399
Post Options Post Options   Quote whatsthepoint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 25 2011 at 6:53pm
But today it's regarded as one of the greatest horror film ever made. Both films are also in IMDB top 250 although that might not be saying much. Of course go on any other forum and people say the razzie's lose credibilaty because of that Kubrick nomination.
Back to Top
Michaels View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: May 12 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2848
Post Options Post Options   Quote Michaels Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 25 2011 at 7:36pm
I have already posted that the Razzies are to be taken as seriously as the MTV Movie Awards, which means their results should be taken with a grain of salt. The Razzies are just a light-hearted spoof of how Hollywood pats itself on the back and tries to ignore their shortcomings. Mind you, Kubrick wasn't well liked back in the '80s. It's only now that he's been dead for about 15 years that he has respect (such is the way with misunderstood artists). So I wouldn't get too built up about him getting a nod some 31 years ago. Besides, it's not like he "won" the award or anything.  

Originally posted by whatsthepoint

But today it's regarded as one of the greatest horror film ever made. Both films are also in IMDB top 250 although that might not be saying much. Of course go on any other forum and people say the razzie's lose credibilaty because of that Kubrick nomination. 
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
Back to Top
whatsthepoint View Drop Down
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum


Joined: June 13 2011
Location: Vermont
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 399
Post Options Post Options   Quote whatsthepoint Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 28 2011 at 8:46am
Well no duh!
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down