The weird thing about a "casting" Oscar is that the cast of a movie can often only be seen as brilliant in retrospect. Let's take True Romance as an example. It's a movie with an absolutely...
The weird thing about a "casting" Oscar is that the cast of a movie can often only be seen as brilliant in retrospect.
Let's take True Romance as an example. It's a movie with an absolutely stacked cast if you consider the work many of the actors did following the film. Sure, I knew who Christian Slater, Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper, and Christopher Walken were when it came out. But Patricia Arquette was a revelation. Brad Pitt in a minor role as a stoner roommate, sure it was funny at the time, but given his current body of work, is an incredible get. I had no fucking clue who James Gandolfini was in 1993 when he's playing a random thug, but after his run in The Sopranos, the dude is a fucking legend.
The problem I see with a casting Oscar is that it also weights current big budget films higher. Dune 2 has an incredible cast from the jump. But what if there's a film this year where every actor in it becomes legendary in eight years, like in True Romance?
Casting is undoubtedly important in filmmaking, but it isn't something you can exactly award in the year the movie came out. It's more of something appreciate in retrospect.
This is only my opinion but good casting shouldn't mean to have the most of the biggest names in Hollywood. It's about a cast that works, strong performances that support one another and don't get...
This is only my opinion but good casting shouldn't mean to have the most of the biggest names in Hollywood. It's about a cast that works, strong performances that support one another and don't get in the way. That's certainly something you can recognize in the first watch and doesn't require hindsight (although always hindsight helps when we're talking about awards).
But I'm not a casting director and don't know the profession's ins and outs, so maybe it's just about getting the big names which in turn means budget and prestige? Certainly stacked casts have an advantage, maybe this'll earn Cats an award posthumously.
I'm not sure how they will award it, but I think it would make the most sense for it to go to a film that has cast lesser known talent that put on a great (/"breakthrough") performance. I don't...
I'm not sure how they will award it, but I think it would make the most sense for it to go to a film that has cast lesser known talent that put on a great (/"breakthrough") performance.
I don't think it's impressive to cast an actor that everyone already knows and loves.
BAFTA already awards this if you wanna see an example of how this would be awarded. Obviously the Motion Picture Academy wouldn’t nominate British stuff like Rocks, Boiling Point, or How to Have...
Obviously the Motion Picture Academy wouldn’t nominate British stuff like Rocks, Boiling Point, or How to Have Sex. But I imagine the nominees this year would have been like: Oppenheimer, Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, American Fiction, and either Past Lives or Poor Things.
The weird thing about a "casting" Oscar is that the cast of a movie can often only be seen as brilliant in retrospect.
Let's take True Romance as an example. It's a movie with an absolutely stacked cast if you consider the work many of the actors did following the film. Sure, I knew who Christian Slater, Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper, and Christopher Walken were when it came out. But Patricia Arquette was a revelation. Brad Pitt in a minor role as a stoner roommate, sure it was funny at the time, but given his current body of work, is an incredible get. I had no fucking clue who James Gandolfini was in 1993 when he's playing a random thug, but after his run in The Sopranos, the dude is a fucking legend.
The problem I see with a casting Oscar is that it also weights current big budget films higher. Dune 2 has an incredible cast from the jump. But what if there's a film this year where every actor in it becomes legendary in eight years, like in True Romance?
Casting is undoubtedly important in filmmaking, but it isn't something you can exactly award in the year the movie came out. It's more of something appreciate in retrospect.
This is only my opinion but good casting shouldn't mean to have the most of the biggest names in Hollywood. It's about a cast that works, strong performances that support one another and don't get in the way. That's certainly something you can recognize in the first watch and doesn't require hindsight (although always hindsight helps when we're talking about awards).
But I'm not a casting director and don't know the profession's ins and outs, so maybe it's just about getting the big names which in turn means budget and prestige? Certainly stacked casts have an advantage, maybe this'll earn Cats an award posthumously.
So this is for "best casting" by the director? Won't this just turn into "you got an actor Hollywood really likes" for this role?
I'm not sure how they will award it, but I think it would make the most sense for it to go to a film that has cast lesser known talent that put on a great (/"breakthrough") performance.
I don't think it's impressive to cast an actor that everyone already knows and loves.
BAFTA already awards this if you wanna see an example of how this would be awarded.
Obviously the Motion Picture Academy wouldn’t nominate British stuff like Rocks, Boiling Point, or How to Have Sex. But I imagine the nominees this year would have been like: Oppenheimer, Barbie, Killers of the Flower Moon, American Fiction, and either Past Lives or Poor Things.