On Oscars 2018 and 2019

Last year I didn’t write a word about the Oscars. 
It was a bad year. Of the 9 films that were nominated for Best Picture, I haven’t seen Call Me by Your Name, Darkest Hour, Get Out, and The Post—I was busy, and just indifferent. I had a strong dislike of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, which had some touching moments but as a whole was a corny film, with a forced message and a contrived plot. I didn’t buy Sam Rockwell’s character’s transformation, which means that I wasn’t happy about him getting the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor (though it’s the fault of the script, not the actor’s fault). Above all, I didn’t like that the dead police officer was so perfect, and the Frances McDormand character was seen by everyone as a bad person—the film deserves credit for its different approach in that generally the mother of a raped and murdered girl should be sympathised with, but the character is so angry, obsessed, and single-minded that everyone else turns against her as she becomes more extreme, but at the same time, it seems to me rather heartless that she is portrayed as an angry and unreasonable character and has nobody’s sympathy and understanding. 
Another film that I vehemently disliked last year was The Shape of Water, which won Best Picture. It’s a silly film, with a banal, commonplace story and a 2-dimensional villain. The Shape of Water was a disappointment after Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone, and it’s beyond my comprehension that such a film won Best Picture. 
I thought more highly of Phantom Thread and Lady Bird, especially the former. Phantom Thread is a film that I didn’t enjoy on a personal level, because of the toxic relationship depicted, but it’s an excellent film, a great film that doesn’t have the bagginess and messiness of most of Paul Thomas Anderson’s works. It’s also a nice film for Daniel Day-Lewis to end his career with, though of course I wish he’s still acting. 
In general, last year was a bad year, and I was indifferent to most of the films. I wasn’t, for example, enthusiastic about Blade Runner 2049 and Dunkirk, the 2 films that my classmates were crazy about.
The only film I really liked last year was The Square, in Foreign Language Film category, but it didn’t win. I haven’t seen A Fantastic Woman. 
This year is another shitty year. 
I haven’t seen Black Panther, BlacKkKlansman, and A Star Is Born. Bohemian Rhapsody, The Favourite, and Green Book are quite good. Vice is dead boring and tries too hard to be quirky. Roma is hugely overrated. Do people praise it because it’s slow and in B&W? It baffles me that the film gets nominated for Best Cinematography—it’s not even B&W, just shades of grey, with no real black and no real white. A friend of mine compares the film to Fellini, but it’s nothing like Fellini, especially in cinematography. I hate that Roma didn’t have close-ups and the camera was far away most of the time, that at the beginning I got the main character and another servant mixed up. I hate that the camera movement was, for a large part, unmotivated. I hate that it’s not really B&W. 
Another thing that perplexes me is that Yalitza Aparicio got nominated for Best Actress. She was passive and unresponsive for the entire film. Things happen—earthquake, forest fire, fights, cries, threats, riots, shootings, etc. she never reacts. She remains slow, unresponsive, and expressionless for the entire film, except when the character has a miscarriage—but even then, the actress doesn’t express much. It is not stoicism, even when the lover shows off his martial arts skill by playing around with a pole, which might fly into her face any moment, or when he later humiliates her, or when he points a gun at her, she never reacts. Her performance doesn’t hint at anything hidden underneath. Why would she deserve the nomination, and such praise? 
Roma is, to me, a weak film, and I wouldn’t hate it so much if not for the universal acclaim among the critics. Why is it that such a film gets nominated for both Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film? I don’t remember any such thing happening before. 
I predict that Rami Malek will win Best Actor for Bohemian Rhapsody, Olivia Colman—Best Actress for The Favourite, Mahershala Ali—Best Supporting Actor for Green Book, Marina de Tavira—Best Supporting Actress for Roma. 
For Best Picture and Best Director, I suspect Roma will win, though I prefer The Favourite. 
Still going to watch it tonight, but this year is such a shitty year.
Maybe for me the Oscars have lost their magic. 

Underrated films: a list

This is my list of favourite underrated films. 
To explain, I don’t mention films such as Cries and Whispers—generally speaking, most people haven’t watched it, but it’s regarded as one of the peaks of Ingmar Bergman’s oeuvre and recognised as among the greatest films ever made. 
By underrated films, I’m thinking of the films that are overlooked—the films that people don’t often include in the list of best films or films you should watch, and the films that people forget when talking about an important director. 

The list (strong favourites in bold): 
Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948), dir. Max Ophuls 
In a Lonely Place (1950), dir. Nicholas Ray 
Gion Bayashi/ A Geisha (1953), dir. Kenji Mizoguchi 
Street of Shame (1956), dir. Kenji Mizoguchi 
The Killing (1956), dir. Stanley Kubrick 
Nights of Cabiria (1957), dir. Federico Fellini 
The Bad Sleep Well (1960), dir. Akira Kurosawa 
The Innocents (1961), dir. Jack Clayton 
My Fair Lady (1964), dir. George Cukor 
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970), dir. Billy Wilder 
The Last Detail (1973), dir. Hal Ashby 
The Phantom of Liberty (1974), dir. Luis Bunuel 
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974), dir. Martin Scorsese 
3 Women (1977), dir. Robert Altman 
On Golden Pond (1981), dir. Mark Rydell 
My Left Foot (1989), dir. Jim Sheridan 
Bound (1996), dir. The Wachowskis 
Happy Together (1997), dir. Wong Kar-wai 
Happiness (1998), dir. Todd Solondz 
Memento (2000), dir. Christopher Nolan 
Sideways (2004), dir. Alexander Payne
Fracture (2007), dir. Gregory Hoblit 

This list would expand.

The best 10 films of every decade from the 1940s to 2000s- new list

My choice. 
Why? Because I love lists. 

- The 40s:
The Great Dictator (1940)
Casablanca (1942)
Gaslight (1944)
Brief Encounter (1945)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
The Killers (1946)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Bicycle Thieves (1948)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
The Heiress (1949)

- The 50s:
All about Eve (1950)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
On the Waterfront (1954)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) 
12 Angry Men (1957)
Nights of Cabiria (1957)
Wild Strawberries (1957)
The Seventh Seal (1957) 
Vertigo (1958)

- The 60s:
The Apartment (1960)
Psycho (1960)
Winter Light (1963) 
8 ½ (1963)
The Woman in the Dunes (1964) 
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Persona (1966)
Blowup (1966)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

- The 70s:
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Cries and Whispers (1972) 
The Godfather (1972)
Last Tango in Paris (1972)
The Godfather Part II (1974) 
The Conversation (1974)
Chinatown (1974) 
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Annie Hall (1977)

- The 80s:
Raging Bull (1980)
On Golden Pond (1981)
Sophie's Choice (1982) 
Ran (1985)
Rain Man (1988)
The Accused (1988)
My Left Foot (1989)
Monsieur Hire (1989)
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
Dekalog (1989) 

- The 90s:
Goodfellas (1990)
The Double Life of Veronique (1991)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Raise the Red Lantern (1991)
Three Colours: Blue (1993) 
To Live (1994)
Pulp Fiction (1994) 
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 
Happy Together (1997)
Festen (1998) 

- The 2000s:
Memento (2000)
The Pianist (2002)
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)
2046 (2004)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Babel (2006) 
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2007)

Daniel Day-Lewis on Cecil Vyse

My obsession with Daniel Day-Lewis, I suppose, may sometimes be quite ridiculous, but look at how adorable he is in this interview:


There's also a clip- 1 of the best scenes in A Room with a View. 
Perhaps I have always been indifferent to the Lucy-George romance because my attention's always on Cecil Vyse. 

The best films of the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s and 00s (my choice)- 4th update

(originally posted on 17/10/2014). 
Such a list only shows how little I've watched (very often, an excellent film is not mentioned here simply because I haven't watched it), but I'm shamelessly making and publishing it anyway. The ones in bold type are masterpieces and strong favourites, and will certainly remain in the list (in other words: will not be removed at any cost), the other films can be replaced when I discover/ remember something greater.

- The 40s:
The Great Dictator (1940)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Casablanca (1942)
Gaslight (1944)
Brief Encounter (1945)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
The Killers (1946)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
The Bicycle Thief (1948)
The Heiress (1949)

- The 50s:
All about Eve (1950)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
In a Lonely Place (1950)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
On the Waterfront (1954)
The Killing (1956)
Witness for the Prosecution (1957) 
12 Angry Men (1957)
Vertigo (1958)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

- The 60s:
The Apartment (1960)
Psycho (1960)
Vivre sa vie (1962)
The Insect Woman (1963)
8 ½ (1963)
The Woman in the Dunes (1964) 
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Blowup (1966)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

- The 70s:
The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
The Godfather (1972)
Last Tango in Paris (1972)
The Godfather Part II (1974) 
The Conversation (1974)
Chinatown (1974) 
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Scent of a Woman (1975) 
Taxi Driver (1976)
Autumn Sonata (1978)

- The 80s:
Raging Bull (1980)
On Golden Pond (1981)
Sophie's Choice (1982) 
Scarface (1983)
Ran (1985)
Rain Man (1988)
The Accused (1988)
A Short Film About Love (1988)
My Left Foot (1989)
Monsieur Hire (1989)

- The 90s:
Goodfellas (1990)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Raise the Red Lanterns (1991)
A Few Good Men (1992)
To Live (1994)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 
Titanic (1997)
Happy Together (1997)
Central do Brasil (1998)
Magnolia (1999)

- The 2000s:
Memento (2000)
À la folie... pas du tout (2002)
The Pianist (2002)
Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)
2046 (2004)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2007)



Comment!

My 10 favourite gangster films

1/ The Godfather (1972)
2/ The Godfather Part II (1974)
3/ Goodfellas (1990)
4/ Mean Streets (1973)
5/ Gangs of New York (2002)
6/ Pulp Fiction (1994)
7/ Scarface (1983)
8/ Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)
9/ Infernal Affairs (2002)
10/ Bonnie& Clyde (1967)

Daniel Day-Lewis in My Left Foot

As the Oscar for Best actor this year has just been awarded to Eddie Redmayne for his portrayal of Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything, I'd like to remind people of another actor who has also won an Oscar for playing a physically disabled person, Daniel Day-Lewis as Christy Brown in My Left Foot. Christy Brown's an Irish writer and painter who had cerebral palsy and had to do everything with his left foot.

Here are some videos of the film:

Daniel Day-Lewis receiving his 1st Oscar:


Meeting the press afterwards:


While I feel uncertain about Eddie Redmayne, Daniel Day-Lewis has proven again and again and again and again, in The Last of the Mohicans, in The Name of the Father, in Gangs of New York, in There Will Be Blood, in Lincoln..., and also in his earlier films, My Beautiful Laundrette, A Room with a View, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, etc, that he's the best actor we've got today, as we had Marlon Brando in the golden age of Hollywood, that he makes himself disappear and transforms so magically into his characters that it's difficult to believe they are all portrayed by the same person, that he elevates the art of acting to a higher level, that he sets a higher standard and makes one realise how most other actors only play themselves on the screen. 
Praising Daniel Day-Lewis is never overpraising. 
He may not be know by many people- people are more familiar with Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, Christian Bale, George Clooney, Johnny Depp, Sean Penn, Tom Hanks, etc. but that doesn't matter. Daniel Day-Lewis is not a movie star, and he's more than an actor, he's an artist. 
If that still doesn't make you want to check out My Left Foot, here is a review by Roger Ebert:
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/my-left-foot-1990
And on Rotten Tomatoes, the rating is 97%: 
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/my_left_foot/
If you haven't watched this film, it should be in your TBW list. 

[Angry rant] Why I'm not excited about the Oscars this year

My Oscar predictions:
Best picture: "12 years a slave"
Best actor: Matthew McConaughey in "Dallas buyers club" (or Chiwetel Ejiofor in "12 years a slave")
Best actress: Cate Blanchett in "Blue jasmine"
Best supporting actor: Jared Leto in "Dallas buyers club"
Best supporting actress: Lupita Nyong'o in "12 years a slave"
Best director: Alfonso Cuarón for "Gravity" (or Steve McQueen for "12 years a slave")


______________________________________________________

[Warning: This is a rant].
Let's look at the nominees. 
Among the 9 films, there's 1 film I haven't watched- "Nebraska". "12 years a slave", the best of them, is beautifully done, authentic and deeply moving. My other favourites are "Philomena", "Her" and "Dallas buyers club", they make us laugh and make us cry and stay with us long afterwards because they touch the deepest parts of our hearts. "Gravity" and "Captain Phillips" are OK, good for their genres and no more. "American hustle", which I've just watched, is dull and tedious, with unbearable cast (I'll come back to this point later). Above all, "The wolf of Wall Street" is a huge disappointment, or to be precise, it's an average comedy, but I can't believe that the man who has made masterpieces such as "Taxi driver", "Goodfellas", "Raging bull", "The aviator", "Mean streets"... could make such a ridiculous and pointless film like "The wolf of Wall Street". It's an embarrassing film, in the sense that, placed next to Paul Thomas Anderson's great works such as "There will be blood", "Magnolia" and "Boogie nights", his latest film "The master" is not as good but not embarrassing, but "Punch drunk love" is.
When it comes to the nominated actors and actresses, I realise that usually at Oscars they have a dozen films and then fill the acting categories with people from these films. As a result, some of the nominees don't deserve it whilst some brilliant performances in so-so or good but forgotten films get neglected. Jonah Hill in "The wolf of Wall Street" getting a nomination is like a joke. Christian Bale, who a few years ago blew my mind with "The fighter", has a pale and forgettable performance in "American hustle", like Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence in the same film, Sandra Bullock in "Gravity" and Michael Fassbender in "12 years a slave". Bradley Cooper is Bradley Cooper, "Silver linings playbook" may have changed his career and given him better opportunities, but he remains the way he is. Michael Fassbender is 1 of those actors I have never considered good, though some people have compared him to Daniel Day-Lewis (blasphemy!), and in this film, having such a challenging, fascinatingly complex role, doesn't make use of the great opportunity, which could have been the role of a lifetime. What truly gets on my nerves is that after "Winter's bone" and "Silver linings playbook", Jennifer Lawrence gets nominated again. She's overrated. Her confident, unsophisticated, down-to-earth, natural, easygoing public image charms and blinds people. In this film she's exactly the same as in "Silver linings playbook", the way she talks, the way she shouts, the way she lifts up her chin, the way she frowns, the way she laughs, the way she behaves like a crazy, unstable woman... In fact, that voice, those facial expressions, gestures, gesticulations... I have also seen in "Hunger games" and "Winter's bone" and "X-men: 1st class" and "House at the end of the street". So what's next? I've called it a mistake to give her an Oscar for "Silver linings playbook", though I do like her in it, now she's even more disappointing. What's next? Jennifer Lawrence plays herself, just like Keira Knightley, Naomi Watts, Carey Mulligan, Julia Roberts, Elizabeth Taylor.. and acts mostly on the surface, not as well as Jessica Chastain, Helena Bonham Carter, Glenn Close, Jodie Foster, Julianne Moore, Hilary Swank..., let alone Vivien Leigh, Meryl Streep, Ingrid Bergman, Cate Blanchett, Marion Cotillard, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis... I understand that she's young, and for the time being can't think of any young actress that is better, but I have seen enough to see that she will not develop any further in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years or even 40 years.








______________________________________________________

The discovery of Daniel Day-Lewis in the art of acting is as awful as the discovery of Tolstoy in literature. It changed my perspective and standard forever. Of course, I neither expect every actor to be like Daniel Day-Lewis, nor every writer to be like Tolstoy, which is impossible, but still...

Punch-drunk love: Rethink Paul Thomas Anderson

I saw "Punch-drunk love" last night. 
Apparently I was over-enthusiastic the other day when writing about "Magnolia" and calling Paul Thomas Anderson the best director of his generation. Now I'm not sure. Put it this way: 
1/ I still think Paul Thomas Anderson is a very talented director, especially good at getting the best performances from actors. 
2/ It's also undeniable that he's a true auteur. He directs and writes his own screenplays and has artistic control, and above all, he has a distinct style, like Stanley Kubrick, Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese, Coen brothers, Tim Burton, Wong Kar-wai... Directors like David Fincher, Clint Eastwood, Jim Sheridan, David O. Russell, Sidney Lumet... don't really have a style (though I do like them).
3/ I don't change my opinion about "There will be blood" and "Magnolia", his 2 best films. "There will be blood" is exceptionally great, albeit dry, which deals with 2 opposing forces- 2 men represent the negative side of materialism and of religion. Daniel Plainview is 1 of the best characters in cinema. While he is seen by some people as a villain, an evil, heartless, brutal person, to me, he's in many ways a Travis Bickle. But differences in opinions, and disagreements, are fine, they show that Daniel Plainview's a fascinating psychological study.
[And obviously, one cannot overlook Daniel Day-Lewis's role in making that character on paper come alive]. 
Yet "Punch-drunk love" is a silly film. I know it's 79% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes but to me it's rotten. It's a romantic comedy that is neither romantic nor funny.
a) Details like the puddings and the harmonium may seem cool but they're pointless. 
b) In some scenes the music really bugs me. I can't find it among the soundtracks, but it's the background music when Lena is introduced to Barry by his sister while he's panicking about and annoyed with something else. It really bugged me.
c) The film fails to explain why Barry and Lena are attracted to each other, especially on Lena's side. I understand that Barry's lonely and shy and nervous with tons of personal problems, but I don't see what Lena sees in him. If Paul Thomas Anderson means that Lena finds Barry quirky but cute, I don't see it. The love story doesn't make sense. And the scenes when they're being together, even when Barry travels to Hawaii just to be with her, or when he admits is, aren't romantic.
d) There's no chemistry between Adam Sandler and Emily Watson. 
e) The 'solution' to the phone sex hotline is silly. 
(And what's the significance of Dean Trumbell? So that Philip Seymour Hoffman has a role in this film?) 
The best scenes in "Punch-drunk love" are at the beginning, when one sees Barry and starts to see what kind of person he is and what problems he has.
f) After all I don't know what Paul Thomas Anderson wants to say. That, like Barry says, "I have a love in my life. It makes me stronger than anything you can imagine."? 
"The master" has that same flaw. It has rich material and very good characters and mesmerising performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman and a fascinating relationship or bond (between the master and the 'masturbator'), but in the end I feel uncertain what Paul Thomas Anderson really wants to say. I don't mean a moral lesson, a so-called message. But if you have nothing to say and make a film for no reason, why make it? 
In short the film is hollow. Or, like a critic put it, "All those whacky ideas surround an empty or non-existent centre." 
So now I rethink my praise. "There will be blood" and "Magnolia" are much better and have much greater depth than Christopher Nolan's best films, for example, yet on the other hand Christopher Nolan hasn't made an absolutely pointless and ridiculous one (if he has, like "Following" or "Batman begins", I haven't watched them). 
Oh well...

Steven Spielberg's "Obama"

I can't help sharing this hilarious video.



Daniel Day-Lewis is a legend. And Obama's so cool.
PS: Today's Daniel's birthday. 


Bonus- updated on 30/4/2013: http://www.thejournal.ie/daniel-day-lewis-funny-889316-Apr2013/

Oscars- new thoughts

1/ Here and there people give a list of great actors who haven't won an Oscar.
I can't list all of them here, but I would say, there are some actors who don't deserve an Oscar and are unlikely to win, such as: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Will Smith, Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Bill Murray, etc. They are all A-listers, they are all very famous and popular, but they haven't reached what can be called greatness yet. Just look at actors like Daniel Day-Lewis, Robert De Niro, Sean Penn, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Tom Hanks, Heath Ledger, etc. you'll see.
Even Leonardo DiCaprio, 1 of my favourite actors, can't be considered great. I have seen him in about 11 films, the latest "Django unchained". In film history there have been performances that are impeccable and can't be topped, such as Heath Ledger in "The dark knight", Robert De Niro in "Raging bull", Marlon Brando in "A streetcar named Desire", Joaquin Phoenix in "The master", Adrien Brody in "The pianist", Al Pacino in "Scent of a woman", John Malkovich in "In the line of fire"... but in the case of Leonardo DiCaprio he hasn't had a performance that can't be bettered, and his ability has a limit- he can't push it further. But, because getting an Oscar depends on lots of factors (which will be discussed later), and he's a serious actor who takes the opportunities as well as looks for good films, has ambition and works hard, he may have a chance and personally I hope he'll get one.

2/ People often forget, an Oscar is given for a single performance, not the career as a whole. It therefore depends on:
- The actor's talent.
The ones mentioned in 1/ are not good enough for an Oscar, for example.
And then there are actors who are so talented that the idea of them not winning is inconceivable, and they therefore must win sooner or later.
Sean Penn didn't get an Oscar for his unforgettable performances in "I am Sam" and "Carlito's way", but he later won for "Mystic river" and "Milk". Philip Seymour Hoffman was impressive and extraordinary in various roles without getting an Oscar but finally won for "Capote".
Meryl Streep in "Doubt" was much better than Kate Winslet in "The reader", the winner, but a few years later Meryl won for "The iron lady".
Gary Oldman, I haven't seen in many films, but it seems that people are right about his ability to transform into different characters and, very often, become unrecognisable, so I think sooner or later he'll win- the only problem is that filmmakers must give him the right roles instead of those small supporting roles in those unserious films.
- The role/ the character.
Depth of personality and emotions is favoured over eccentricity in behaviour and manner. That explains why Johnny Depp hasn't won and will not win. It also explains why Gary Oldman wasn't nominated until "Tinker tailor soldier spy". He may be considered 1 of the greatest actors of all time, for disappearing into characters, reinventing himself each time and inhabiting each role he plays, and thus has become the inspiration and role model for lots of actors, but as I've said an Oscar is given for a single performance, not the career as a whole. When a role is somehow limited, the actor, no matter how great, can't do anything more. So when Gary Oldman finally got what he called a role of a lifetime and was nominated for "Tinker tailor soldier spy", his subdued performance couldn't beat Jean Dujardin in "The artist" even though I don't think Jean Dujardin normally can't be called a very talented actor.
It's also why Daniel was perfect in "Gangs of New York" but the Oscar went to Adrien Brody- Adrien's role in "The pianist" is psychologically much deeper and more complicated.
- The performance itself.
There are Oscar winners that are not really incredible in their films in general: Colin Firth, Adrien Brody, Nicolas Cage, Jeremy Irons, Humphrey Bogart, James Stewart, Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Sandra Bullock, Charlize Theron, Halle Berry, Julia Roberts, Elizabeth Taylor, Audrey Hepburn, etc. But that doesn't mean they can't have a wonderful, Oscar-worthy performance. This again depends on lots of factors: the script, the character, the film director...
I do not necessarily mean they can't act, or have no talent. Those that can hardly act like Scarlett Johansson, Mia Wasikowska, Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Christina Ricci, Taylor Lautner... have no chance of winning or being nominated. Some actors and actresses have talent, they can be very good at conveying, expressing emotions, playing certain kinds of roles, and among those I mention above, there are some I like very much. But a great, incredible actor is someone who:
+ has flawless, can't-be-topped performances
+ has a wide range= plays a variety of characters that are very different from themselves and very different from each other, from physical appearances and personalities to mannerisms, gestures, accents, voices
+ can always be expected to be good and never disappoints even if the film is bad
On the 2nd point, James Stewart's always the same, for example. I like him very much, because of his voice and what I've read about him, but the guy's always himself. He's exactly the same in "Come live with me", "The man who knew too much", "The Philadelphia story", "Anatomy of a murder" and "It's a wonderful life". Julia Roberts delivered a mesmerising performance in "Erin Brockovich" and is very good at conveying emotions, but, to take her career as a whole, in different roles she's very much like herself in real life- gestures, the way of talking, etc.
(Johnny Depp also repeats himself. The only things that change are his costumes and make-ups. Gestures, mannerisms are pretty much the same).
- Also very important, other nominees.
Hugh Jackman did a wonderful job in "Les misérables", singing for the entire film. Unfortunately he was nominated the same year with Daniel Day-Lewis and Joaquin Phoenix.
Joaquin Phoenix was nominate twice, 1st time for "Walk the line", he was up against Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Capote", 2nd time for the "The master", against Daniel in "Lincoln".
Leonardo DiCaprio was extremely good in "The aviator", but among his fellow nominees was Jamie Foxx in "Ray".

3/ So, does being an Oscar winner mean anything?
Well, the Oscars, like any other award, have some limits. But it doesn't mean people should discard them altogether and call them bullshit (like Joaquin Phoenix, Ethan Hawke and many idiots in the internet have done). "Art is subjective" is a poor argument. People's opinions are not equally plausible. The fact that there's room for disagreement doesn't mean there's no standard, no distinction between good and bad. A person who says Robert De Niro can't act doesn't have a different opinion that can be equally respected as the opinion  of those who recognise his talent- he or she is just wrong. 
I would say, one should be careful with people who have 1 Oscar- some actors have 1 great role and a mediocre career. I mean, look at Nicolas Cage, Halle Berry and Adrien Brody. It gave me pain when I saw the title "Academy award winner" before the name Adrien Brody in the trailer of "InAPPropriate comedy". This guy makes the phrase "Academy award" stink. But when somebody has won more than once, it certainly means something. Daniel Day-Lewis has won 3 times, in 1990, 2008 and 2013, that definitely means something. While people may agree or disagree with the claim that he's the best actor of all time, or the best living actor, that he's a genius actor is universally accepted, anyone who has seen him in "My left foot", "There will be blood", "Gangs of New York", "Lincoln", "A room with a view", "In the name of the father"... can see that it's an indisputable fact. The same goes for Meryl Streep.
I wouldn't always use the Oscars as some kind of standard for comparison. For example, it's absurd to say Joe Pesci is more talented than Gary Oldman because Joe Pesci has won an Oscar for supporting role and Gary hasn't. I have also seen people who argue that 1 actor is a better actor with more nominations and therefore must be better than another in the same role. An example is the Joker, there's an argument that Jack Nicholson is much greater and has got 12 nominations, more than anybody else, and therefore he played the Joker better than Heath Ledger. That is purely absurd and very idiotic. On the other hand, the Oscars are still good and prestigious. I've seen some people say ridiculous things like, "Kristen Stewart deserves an Oscar", "why hasn't Brad Pitt won?", "Michael Fassbender should have got one for "Hunger"", "Leonardo DiCaprio should have won for "Titanic"", etc, etc. (Forget about Kristen Stewart) it is awarded to the best performance, not just a good performance, at least on principle. And most of the time, the winners do deserve it. So in spite of the limitations, the Oscars are still good and prestigious. 
(Ethan Hawke may say whatever he likes- I mean, who can forbid him?- but in the end, is he certain that he's indeed more talented than the Oscar winners? Is he really confident? And is he really great? I have also seen people in the internet who say the Oscars are bullshit/ pointless/ meaningless/ stupid, and then they mention a few actors who they think are talented, well....)

o O o 

On the other hand, I probably should learn from Klasien: when you disagree with somebody and are certain that you're right, you don't have to argue and try to convince anybody, because chances are, you can't, and when you're already certain that you're right, whether or not others agree doesn't matter. 
How can I convince those people who know nothing about cinema, good films and especially, great acting? Or that guy Dana Carvey, who mocked and attempted to make fun of Daniel Day-Lewis. Can I ever change his mind? No. But does it matter? No. Because the thing is, everybody knows, Daniel knows and the envious dude also knows, Daniel has won 112 awards including 3 Oscars, has made history, has become 1 of the greatest actors of all time and will become immortal, and in the next 50 years people will still watch and talk about him, but who will remember Dana Carvey? He has appeared in a film like "Jack& Jill". He may say anything- again, who can stop him?- but everybody can see that he's jealous, and thus, pathetic. 

Competing with Daniel Day-Lewis?

Well, that sounds interesting. 
http://natgeotv.com.au/tv/killing-lincoln/qanda-with-actor-billy-campbell.aspx
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/lifestyle/story/killing-lincoln-actor-steps-out-day-lewis-shadow-20130313
http://ca.omg.yahoo.com/news/killing-lincoln-melds-documentary-drama-animal-says-campbell-200454190.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/03/showbiz/tv/killing-lincoln-trailer-ew
http://www.phillyburbs.com/entertainment/local_entertainment/billy-campbell-has-big-shoes-to-fill-in-killing-lincoln/article_5e7c72b4-8a46-5a9e-97ce-75536b999f4f.html
http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/02/15/3176311/civil-war-buff-campbell-stars.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2299248/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Lincoln_(film)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMHaqEu2IIk
Photos of the new Abraham Lincoln Billy Campbell: 














(Photos of him in real life: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1366&bih=667&q=billy+campbell&oq=billy+campbell&gs_l=img.12..0l10.1072.1072.0.1733.1.1.0.0.0.0.80.80.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.5.img.TXKcPrbUIi0 )

Daniel Day-Lewis or Philip Seymour Hoffman?

Here and there I've seen polls asking people to compare these 2.
(right click- open image in a new tab)
Daniel Day-Lewis:


Philip Seymour Hoffman:



Is it possible to say?
Philip Seymour Hoffman has 1 disadvantage: his physical appearance. I don't mean actors have to be, or should be, good-looking. But his looks are a hindrance in that he can't play convincingly a character that is truly good or truly bad. His characters usually aren't really evil, brutal or cruel- they're just effeminate or weak or cowardly or creepy or perverted or nasty or cocky or awkward or flamboyant or desperately lonely or pathetic or..., in short, unpleasant, detestable and pathetic. Philip Seymour Hoffman, in my opinion, is braver. He takes unpleasant roles many people would say no to, he plays them fearlessly, honestly, creatively. "Capote" is 1 of the few films in which he's a leading actor, the name Philip Seymour Hoffman understandably often comes 2nd or 3rd or 4th or even later in the cast. It doesn't matter. Among actors who often play supporting roles, he stands out as the finest, or 1 of the finest at least. A very talented and versatile actor, who shows that many people have put too much focus on physical transformations (like getting super fat or super thin) without realising that the more important transformations take place on the inside, since he has played various different roles without changing much in his weight. 
This video shows very well his courage and versatility: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXAeLWn5AYQ
I, however, can't imagine him in any of Daniel's roles.
On the other hand, I can't imagine Daniel in any of Philip's roles, either. I have seen him playing a gay character. I have seen him being cold-hearted, greedy, misanthropic, cruel, hateful, racist... I have seen him being stiff, pompous... But effeminate, weak, cowardly, nasty, pathetic? Daniel's talent is not to be doubted. He doesn't give the impression that he's acting- he transforms into the character. As I've said, I still once in a while find it difficult to believe it's really him in "There will be blood" and "Gangs of NY". But while he's incredibly talented, I think his physical appearance is an obstacle if he's supposed to play Philip Seymour Hoffman's roles. 
If asked to choose between these 2 brilliant, extraordinary actors, I still go for Daniel Day-Lewis. Not because of his offscreen qualities, but rather, the fact that, it's Daniel who made me realise what an actor can do, and totally changed my view on acting. He becomes the characters, plays such a wide range of characters so that no 2 performances are the same and at the same time, also impresses me, overwhelms me, strikes me in the head and touches me deeply. Philip Seymour Hoffman doesn't do so, though he's truly talented, 1 of the best in the US. I mean, he always gives a good performance, whenever I see his name I can expect him to be very good, but he's always good and at the same time his performances don't really hit me and overwhelm me the same way, I can't really pick a single outstanding, incredible role. The same goes for Meryl Streep. (That's why in some sense it's better to say Meryl Streep's male counterpart is Philip Seymour Hoffman, whereas Daniel Day-Lewis pretty much stands on his own). 

Daniel Day-Lewis meets the press

Here are Daniel's Oscar backstage videos.



Plus his 3 Oscar acceptance speeches.


The latest one is here, but embedding's been disabled. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKh_XFJ9TWc *
Extremely intelligent, witty, clever, thoughtful, charming (especially the 1st time), gentlemanly, calm, polite and humorous. Except for his dreadful sense of fashion, Daniel's basically perfect. An incredible, admirable, superb and unique actor, a great role model, an inspiring person, a depressingly wonderful man.
It's also interesting to note that he's different each time.
The 1st time, he was particularly careful, contemplative, thoughtful, with grace and a charmingly soft voice.
Later he somehow lost his dazzling look, but of course, remained smart, witty and therefore sexy.
The 3rd time, his answers were short and very humorous. It baffles me greatly how some people got the chance to meet and interview the 1st 3-time repicient of Oscar for best leading actor, in history, and could ask such silly, idiotic questions. Can't say if they were really stupid, or wanted to ask such questions merely to see his reaction. Whatever the case, Daniel was in total control and knew the answer to each and all of them. But yes, the 3rd time Daniel did seem to prove his sister Tamasin's description of him.
Too much praise, I suppose. But the more I know about him, the more I love him.
Now, how about a, say, 5-year-rest and a 4th Oscar? 









*: The way Meryl Streep presented it, there are 2 things I like. 
1st, in the introduction she praised the outstanding performances, which could win any other year and which made it difficult for the Academy to decide who should be the winner. Usually it's easy to see who has the best performance, but sometimes the competition can be very fierce. This year, while I can easily exclude Denzel Washington and Bradley Cooper, I understand that it's difficult to decide between Daniel Day-Lewis, Joaquin Phoenix and Hugh Jackman. Very often, I hear somebody say "He should have won an Oscar for that", and merely want to tell them to look at the year and consider the Oscar nominees that year. The Oscar's not given to a good performance, but the best performance, at least on principle. I feel sorry for both Joaquin and Hugh, both of whom have been amazing, especially Joaquin. 
I also know there are many people who think Hugh Jackman deserves the Oscar more than Daniel, but their argument is flawed- that Hugh can play equally well any of the other roles but the other nominees can't play his. The truth is, Daniel has sung in "Nine" and, as far as I know, Joaquin, in "Walk the line". But they can't sing as well as Hugh! Well, that's the point. I love Hugh Jackman, but there's no way he can reach Daniel's level. After Daniel he would still have had to beat Joaquin, but it's true that he could win another year. 
2nd, though it's outrageous that Meryl opened the envelope off camera, the way she said it was a bit funny, as though she thought 'well everybody knew Daniel Day-Lewis would win anyway'. 

My favourite actors and actresses

Group A:
Daniel Day-Lewis
Vivien Leigh
Meryl Streep
Robert De Niro
Marlon Brando
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Bette Davis
Cate Blanchett
Marion Cotillard
Heath Ledger

Group B:
Al Pacino
Sean Penn
Tom Hanks
Anthony Hopkins
Dustin Hoffman
Ellen Burstyn
Geoffrey Rush
Matthew McConaughey
Joaquin Phoenix 
Gong Li
Christian Bale
Faye Dunaway  
Gerard Depardieu
Vincent Cassel
John Malkovich
Michael Douglas
Audrey Hepburn
Glenn Close
Russell Crowe
Jodie Foster
Paul Newman
Tom Hiddleston
Jessica Chastain 
Ingrid Bergman
Daniel Craig
James Dean
Hugh Jackman
James Stewart
Anne Hathaway
Judi Dench
Fred Astaire
Ralph Fiennes
Charlie Chaplin
Emma Thompson
Alan Rickman
Ryan Gosling
Leslie Cheung
Leonardo DiCaprio
Amy Adams
Javier Bardem
Katharine Hepburn
Justin Timberlake
Rowan Atkinson
Clint Eastwood
Kate Winslet
Dakota Fanning
Haley Joel Osment
Ezra Miller
Jack Lemmon
Paul Dano
Julianne Moore
Tony Leung
Nicole Kidman
Jessica Lange
Peter Sellers 
Sam Rockwell 
Guy Pearce 
Tom Cruise
Emma Watson

Group C:
Monica Bellucci
Sophie Marceau
Audrey Tautou
Brad Pitt
Matt Damon
Rooney Mara
Angelina Jolie
Maggie Cheung
Maggie Q
Edward Norton
Natalie Portman
Juno Temple
Chris Evans
Gary Sinise
Demi Moore
Anna Karina

Penelope Cruz 

Juliette Binoche
Richard Gere

Robert Redford 

Winona Ryder 

Olivia Hussey 

Leonard Whiting 

Bruce Willis 

Rita Hayworth 

Bradley Cooper
Pierce Brosnan 

Marilyn Monroe

Armie Hammer
Olga Kurylenko 

Andrew Garfield 
Robert Downey Jr 

Elijah Wood 

Liam Neeson 

Eva Green 

Chris Hemsworth 

Louise Brooks
Ellen Page
Richard Armitage 
Diane Kruger 
Shirley MacLaine

85th Oscar- Daniel makes history!

7.58pm in Oslo: 
My predictions: 
- Best picture: Argo 
- Best foreign language film: Amour 
- Best film director: Steven Spielberg- Lincoln 
- Best actor in a leading role: Joaquin Phoenix- The master 
- Best actress in a leading role: Emmanuelle Riva- Amour 
- Best actor in a supporting role: Christoph Waltz- Django unchained 
- Best actress in a supporting role: Anne Hathaway- Les misérables

The results: 
- Best picture: Argo 
- Best foreign language film: Amour 
- Best film director: Ang Lee- Life of Pi 
- Best actor in a leading role: Daniel Day-Lewis- Lincoln 
- Best actress in a leading role: Jennifer Lawrence- Silver linings playbook
- Best actor in a supporting role: Christoph Waltz- Django unchained 
- Best actress in a supporting role: Anne Hathaway- Les misérables




And now it's me being emotional: 
YES YES YES YES YES YES. I WAS WRONG. NEVER BEEN HAPPIER. 
CONGRATULATE DANIEL FOR WINNING THE THIRD OSCAR, BREAKING THE RECORD AND AT THE SAME TIME BREAKING THE SPIELBERG CURSE, BECOMING THE FIRST ACTOR IN HISTORY TO HAVE WON 3 OSCARS FOR BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE AND THE FIRST ACTOR TO HAVE WON AN OSCAR FOR PORTRAYING A U.S PRESIDENT!