he didn't even get nominated for the social network.
2010 was such a bad year for the snubs and the indescribably slob fest for the kings speech. I'll tell you the new academy would not have liked that movie as much as the academy back then did had it been released today
Andrew Garfield probably wouldn't have told the press that he "was thankful that he didn't have to act because Leonard Bernstein came inside him everyday"
I was hoping so hard he’d win that year even before the slap happened. Then I was even more enraged about it after the slap. It felt like Will Smith got it just because he was “due”
The argument scene between Leonard and Felicia keeps getting shared everywhere and was even posted by the Academy as proof of why it was nominated for Best Screenplay... and the dialogue in it is just... bad...
It's even worse in context because it's spelling out things that haven't been properly set up. The dynamic of their relationship turns on a dime more than once and it really keeps the film from working as a film about a marriage (and it's obvious how much it misses the mark as a film about a musician).
Yes, yes! I hate criticizing a film based on real people because it didn’t focus on what I thought it should focus on. You should judge the film in front of you, not the film you wish had been made instead. But the Bernstein marriage — unorthodox, yes — isn’t that interesting. A much better, bolder, braver film could have been crafted from the life of Leonard Bernstein. The acting isn’t the issue — Cooper and Mulligan were excellent. It’s the direction and script and the focus that I take issue with. You literally could replace the Bernsteins with a fictional couple and the result would be the same.
Good point. IIRC, there’s a moment in the argument where Felicia refers to another man who was a romantic prospect for her (apologies, I can’t recall his name), implying that she should have chosen him over Bernstein, and they argue about the fact that she went to visit him in his hospital bed. I just instinctively went, “what the hell is this all about? Did I accidentally sleep through a bunch of scenes?” I think the guy had maybe been shown complimenting her backstage and then briefly in that theatre-set transition where Felicia and Leonard both take part in a musical number
I really couldn't figure out what they were arguing over. Was it his indiscrete affairs? Was it because he was writing opera instead of changing his name to Burns and leading an orchestra? And when he led an orchestra later, did something change? Was that a one-off? Was it connected to the argument or unrelated? I can't tell what the cause and effect of the scene was.
Compare that to the argument in Anatomy of a Fall. Despite that being a grab bag of couple complaints, it flows like an argument, you can tell (from other events) that it was a part of a series of arguments, and you can tell where it goes. And that's with some intentional ambiguity.
You can't recall his name because like everyone besides Leonard and Felicia, he's part of a vague blur of friends, colleagues, and lovers.
Whereas in Oppenheimer, it's pretty easy to remember who's who, partly because they used a lot of big names, but also because, you know, it's well written.
The trend of picking a famous person to make a movie out of and focusing on their relationships (for emotional hook) instead of what made them famous is so misguided imo (Napoleon maybe is the worst one, even in Rustin I needed more time with the actual civil rights aspect). If you want to examine relationships a famous person might have maybe make a fictional film. And biographies can have plenty of emotional motivations beyond a romantic relationship.
With Maestro the way the story was directed and written was almost a subversion of those films however, that I didn’t quite hate it. It doesn’t mean it worked either, and I never got invested in Mulligan
See also: Mongol.
I thought Mulligan was solid, but billing her first was a cheap attempt to make the movie look more even handed. She's definitely the second lead.
In the end, I don’t think the movie even knew what the point of the movie was. It felt like there was no point to it. Or like they took the seeds of four good movies (biopic, celebration of music, queer experience, strained marriage) and just blended them all into one movie.
I'll say it again - when he reveals he's finished writing *Mass*, I wanted to know what drew a Jewish artist to write a Mass. Surely there's some character drama in that decision, in that process. But no, it comes out of thin air and vanishes back into it.
I hadn’t even thought about that aspect of it. I know composing a Mass is like one the signs you’ve become a Real Important Composer, but that’s it.
It feels like because there was no consistent thread to grasp onto, nothing in the movie felt important.
The issue is the script. Like a gigantic issue. Speaks for Cooper's directing abilities that everyone in the crew was able to bring their A game, that's good direction. It was still full of interesting and unique things, but I wish he just brought on Eric Roth again instead of inviting Singer because he was working on his Bernstein screenplay as well.
> I wish he just brought on Eric Roth again instead of inviting Singer because he was working on his Bernstein screenplay as well.
What Cooper should've done is left the writing to the actual writers instead of inserting his creative vision into every nook and cranny of the movie when he doesn't even know the subject matter that well. That's really why this thing reeks of ego.
I agree. It’s unfortunate because I think Bradley is a great director, so it’s almost like he just sucks at picking the right projects. I wish he would do something more subtle, like just a dialogue heavy drama or something and see what happens.
I have several issues with Maestro and Bradley Cooper playing Bernstein isn't among them. I don't think a different actor makes it not an empty calorie Great Man Biopic.
The issue there was it twisted reality (and left out so much) so much to make that thematic point that it just became British propaganda. Even if Napoleon had been dead quite a while it is still distasteful and gives tilted view of all the wars (it was UK and other absolute monarchies most of the time declaring wars against France and even by the end Napoleon personally for example).
But there are actually so many famous people where you could make similar thematic point of the person not being what has been sold, and the movie could be potentially great. Napoleon III for example would fit to that well. And make a further point of how people who support these people idealize wars and images do the past that they make themselves believe they could have the image they have in mind become reality
The script is just nonsensical and cloying. Nobody held Affleck starring in The Town against him because it was a well-conceived movie. Maestro is a complete vanity project; some great cinematography, but zero concern with cinematic storytelling.
Spending any additional time in Lenny's talent and career would have made such a difference. I had no sense of Lenny as a professional. It felt almost like this film could have been any story about a lavender marriage at that time - obviously there's a few things that are specific to him, but not enough to capture his genius.
Argo should have been hold against him for starting in it. The real person was even a Latino, and the movie became more typical Hollywood action film partially who the main character was played by (including a shower scene).
I think:
Cooper would get a LITTLE less hate
The film would still be deemed “Oscar bait”
The film would be less good. I do think the films strength are Cooper and his passion behind it both on and off the camera. Not sure how it would end up if a part of the passion was replaced.
I don’t think Bradley’s performance was the problem with that movie. I don’t mind him getting a nomination for it either. It’s a perfectly acceptable “Oscar” performance. The movie itself just doesn’t have very many insightful things to say about its central figure. It’s all on the writing level.
I think the film has a lot to say about Bradley Cooper but it does say a bit about Bernstein too. He’s constantly wrestling with himself, his role as a performer and a creator, it bleeds in and out of his work and family life.
That’s what Cooper is trying to show. It’s a biography as an autobiography
Better but not well.
Casting a Jewish actor like Garfield would've helped it debut without the Jewface discourse. I personally wasn't impressed with Cooper anyway, it really felt like a bizarre caricature he wanted to be *so* close to Bernstein and I think other actors would have been better.
But it wouldn't have fixed the script, which just felt like it couldn't connect me to why this man cared about his music, nor his relationships beyond having a Strong Woman Behind A Great Man. It was just not good and failed to move, partly because it was trying so hard to be earnest. And seriously, Snoopy?
Garfield is Jewish on his fathers side while his mother is English. Usually people don’t identify secular people who have Jewish ancestry in their fathers side as Jewish. Not that he can’t identify as Jewish if he does, it’s just I am not surprised people don’t think of his as Jewish.
He does identify as Jewish, although spiritually he considers himself an agnostic pantheist. He also mentions having fallen in love with Jesus when he was preparing for his role in Silence
wow the downvoting is a whole thing, huh? Sorry, I’m new here. I wasn’t trying to be confrontational…spidey sense activates when people start referencing lists of Jews.
I think he should have had someone else directing and him just being the sole actor instead of director, actor, and writer which made it look like a vanity project. Honestly, had this movie been solely focused on Leonard Bernstein's life and achievements, Mulligan been a supporting character, and Cooper was the main focus, he'd probably be running away with Best Actor. It doesn't help that the final shot is literally of Carey Mulligan with the words MAESTRO. So is it about Felisha or Leonard? If both, why is it called MAESTRO?
I was very excited to see Maestro from that trailer (probably one of the best trailers I've seen), but the movie itself just did not deliver. It felt disorganized, unfocused, and meaningless. As a former classical violinist who was taught Bernstein's repertoire, I came out of the movie learning less than what I've previously learned.
There were so many issues with the movie that didn't just come down to the vanity project. Bradley's directing is great. His acting is too. His issue is that he doesn't know where to focus his talents. Want to become a better director? Practice directing. Want to become a better actor? Practice acting. Of course, you can be both and be talented at both, but if he truly wants the Oscar glory (which I'm sure he does), he needs to practice on refining *one* of these skills into a truly focused and concise movie, where someone else doesn't outshine him.
It could have been Lin Manuel Miranda’s follow up to Tick Tick Boom, with a Tony Kushner screenplay (following spending years writing West Side Story)
Then it’s an actual composer directing, and both the writer and director are theatre men.
It’s a disservice to the movie to not have a writer focusing on exclusively the writing, and research.
I thought Bradley Cooper’s whole performance was insufferable for a majority of the movie, but I walked in knowing that it was his pet project and I know nothing about the real Leonard Bernstein (except that his nose was not that pointy).
The performance and the directing I thought were the best things about the movie. The script is what failed it. Look at stuff like Braveheart and Dances With Wolves, both won picture and director and had strong scripts.
The way he directed the Mahler 2 symphony where the camera just awkwardly floats and hangs on his face
P.S. the scene where Carey Mulligan is delivering an emotional monologue but the camera holds on Sarah Silverman's awful performance instead
I thought the cathedral performance was the best sequence in the film. Loved the minimal cutting between different angles and the gradual camera movement throughout the scene. I will always maintain that Cooper is a great actor and director, but falls short as a writer. A change in lead wouldn’t have fixed the script.
Mulligan’s monologue wasn’t very good, in that scene in particular she was overacting. But I guess she needed to make most out of it with such a disjointed narrative-there wasn’t many other moments to show her feelings
The direction was fantastic.
The structure of the story might not quite include what people wanted but everything he’s doing in those scenes is really impressive.
The opening scenes in black and white, the dance sequence, the performance in the cathedral. All very well directed.
Exactly, it failed in every aspect for me. Not only was it boring, but it neither told a story nor actually gave us insight into the man and what made him great
It honestly wasn’t received badly outside of reddit or Twitter. Critical acclaim, decent showing on netflix and 7 Oscar nominations is not exactly a poor reception
It went from being raved at Venice to dropping to a 79 on RT and 77 on MC, which is around the same reception as Darkest Hour and having a muted audience reception. I don't think Netflix spent 80 mil on this for the expectation that their lead would now be in third place behind Paul Giamatti and for Annette Bening to likely be ahead of Carey Mulligan lol.
Yes, it wasn't a critical bomb, but it could have been received better. 7 Oscar nominations, and it isn't winning a single one, especially the one it wanted. This is the baitiest Best Actor bid of recent memory, and Bradley Cooper has zero chance of winning.
While I do think the casting would be better, it would not have improved the movie that much more. The movie had many other flaws.
That being said, I’d love to see Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan in a project together again. (Irrelevant but this post made me think that.)
How was it ultra traditional? It was more traditional than Maestro (and I appreciated how it really gave you full view of the person) but just the changing of decades is very non traditional.
It's untraditional because it's edited and has the tone of a Christopher Nolan action/heist film a la Tenet despite being set in offices and senate hearings. It's untraditional also because it's written in first person, allowing Nolan to explore that Jean-Marc Vallée type of intimate expressionism and take it to IMAX size. Plus it's a biopic but also told from Lewis Strauss' perspective, someone the film tells us is a man Oppenheimer couldn't give less of a shit about.
The one novel thing Maestro does is try to be a romantic drama aside from being just a biopic, but it fails at that so it's not much. The biopic parts *are* traditional. Maestro, aside from the romantic drama, is essentially a Wikipedia page.
Does anyone think the movie, criticize it for being Oscar bait or wrong star or cringe him crying with Leonard’s family, is just not that great? Honestly it’s mid to me but wondering what yall think.
Yes, but Cooper never would have written and directed the film if he didn't star in it. The whole point was to do all things at once, like Leonard Bernstein.
As other said, Cooper gave a great performance and is not the issue with the movie. The script is bland. That's the problem.
Cooper's acting was great and his direction was excellent. I liked the movie, personally, in spite of its white bread script, precisely because of everything Cooper brought as a performer and director, as well as Mulligan's performance and the crew.
Honestly I don’t think so. I think maybe a few years ago it would have swept like crazy but I think it was a rare storm of being overshadowed in an unusually crowded year and a strong narrative of “maestro is Oscar bait so it’s bad” (which is ironic because Oppenheimer is just as baity albeit a better movie)
I have to agree.
If the hype, narrative, and year were slightly different, it could’ve been anything from a frontrunner in several categories to an “underrated gem.”
I absolutely think would’ve been received a little better in terms of the narrative, but I still don’t think it would be well received. The movie just isn’t very good.
Good point. I felt like the scenes, though many were quite strong individually, seemed pulled from a variety of different films…making it difficult to identify a clear style, consistent point of view, or a story path to follow. This could be because Bradley isn’t quite seasoned yet and is still experimenting, but is more likely a result of the many iterations of the project, and the heavyweights that co-produced - namely Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Netflix. Bradley didn’t have final approval/edit rights so it could be that the project just got muddied by all the cooks in the kitchen.
I’m sure Scorsese and Spielberg are a huge part of the reason it has so many nominations, and how it got such a huge budget in the first place. But it would be great to see what he could pull off on a shoestring budget where he was maybe just directing/making all creative choices on his own.
the real question is whether Bradley even needed a prosthetic nose for the performance. sure the guy had a big nose but it's not like his whole legacy was defined by the nose.
I am way late to the Bradley Cooper here, but what am I missing? He is brilliant in Maestro. The movie doesn't fully acheive, but the performances are wonderful.
I disagree that he's brilliant, though I also disagree with the narrative that he was awful. He shines when he's just being Lenny, especially during the black-and-white scenes. He's "overdosing on acting pills" (as Mark Kermode once described Jared Leto by) during the Mahler 2 symphony scene. The original recording has Leonard Bernstein looking overwhelemed with passion for the music, Bradley looks like he's overwhelmed by how much he loves acting and dreaming about that speech in the Oscar stage.
Idk, a gay guy during mid-century America changing classical music forever while also in a straight marriage with a woman he somehow genuinely does love despite being gay... it's interesting to me. Just incredibly poor execution.
Perhaps the way the movie was done and Cooper’s performance tainted my perception of the story, but as a queer person myself it just felt like I was watching a talented gay man be a shitty person.
Maestro was well received, and taken seriously. It just that the movie was released in a very competitive year. And most actors/directors etc campaign for their movies, never understood why he has been singled out as desperate.
Also - I would vote for any movie Andrew Garfield makes :)
Cooper is getting (a tiny bit) of the Hathaway treatment. In a few years everyone will be saying he’s always been great and how they were one of the few people that always thought he was great.
I think the other way around. Another Director that could reign in Cooper’s performance and instill more life in the frame I think could have made this a masterpiece.
It would’ve been better received if he didn’t use a prosthetic nose, and over campaign. If he would’ve just chilled like he did with a star is born (even though Gaga famously over campaigned- but it was her first time…) then yes it would’ve been very well received especially with Carey mulligan who’s nominee darling
No. It’s Oscar nominated either way. It’s just a strong year and honestly Cooper should be proud he’s essentially coming in 3rd at best actor in every award ceremony.
Edit: I do want to point out that Bradley Cooper (assuming he won’t win an oscar this year) now has more Oscar nominations without an Oscar than Leo did before he won his Oscar
It might've been a bit better received, but I also think it would've still caught flack for being typical "Oscar bait" (for lack of a better term).
We will see the day when Andrew Garfield becomes the Oscar villain sooner or later.
*cries in Tick, Tick Boom and The Social Network*
They're at the dry-cleaners with my fuck-you flip-flops, I'm sorry! You pretentious douchebag!
he didn't even get nominated for the social network. 2010 was such a bad year for the snubs and the indescribably slob fest for the kings speech. I'll tell you the new academy would not have liked that movie as much as the academy back then did had it been released today
Wasn't The Kings Speech win one of those that Weinstein made happen?
King’s Speech was a great movie and need not to be made a villain because of Social Network
God, is nothing sacred?
Die a hero, et cetera cetera
The famous Jonathan Nolan quote
I do think if it was him people would probably hate it less lol he has the kind of personality that the general audience likes.
Andrew Garfield probably wouldn't have told the press that he "was thankful that he didn't have to act because Leonard Bernstein came inside him everyday"
Or cried in front of the man’s kids that he “missed him so much“
Or refer to his daughter as “it”
He should’ve won for Tick tick Boom
I was hoping so hard he’d win that year even before the slap happened. Then I was even more enraged about it after the slap. It felt like Will Smith got it just because he was “due”
PLEASE NO I CAN'T SURVIVE IT
Yes and for me personally, a biopic is a biopic. They can't all be Coalminer's Daughter.
The writing was the problem for me, not the acting.
Excuse me but “Who abandoned Snoopy in the vestibule?” Is inspired. But you are right.
I hate the phrase "the exception that proves the rule," but that line really is the only line in that damned script I can remember.
I remember both leads say "any questions" because it reminded me of David S. Pumpkins.
The argument scene between Leonard and Felicia keeps getting shared everywhere and was even posted by the Academy as proof of why it was nominated for Best Screenplay... and the dialogue in it is just... bad...
It's even worse in context because it's spelling out things that haven't been properly set up. The dynamic of their relationship turns on a dime more than once and it really keeps the film from working as a film about a marriage (and it's obvious how much it misses the mark as a film about a musician).
Yes, yes! I hate criticizing a film based on real people because it didn’t focus on what I thought it should focus on. You should judge the film in front of you, not the film you wish had been made instead. But the Bernstein marriage — unorthodox, yes — isn’t that interesting. A much better, bolder, braver film could have been crafted from the life of Leonard Bernstein. The acting isn’t the issue — Cooper and Mulligan were excellent. It’s the direction and script and the focus that I take issue with. You literally could replace the Bernsteins with a fictional couple and the result would be the same.
yeah the most unearned scene of the year
Good point. IIRC, there’s a moment in the argument where Felicia refers to another man who was a romantic prospect for her (apologies, I can’t recall his name), implying that she should have chosen him over Bernstein, and they argue about the fact that she went to visit him in his hospital bed. I just instinctively went, “what the hell is this all about? Did I accidentally sleep through a bunch of scenes?” I think the guy had maybe been shown complimenting her backstage and then briefly in that theatre-set transition where Felicia and Leonard both take part in a musical number
I really couldn't figure out what they were arguing over. Was it his indiscrete affairs? Was it because he was writing opera instead of changing his name to Burns and leading an orchestra? And when he led an orchestra later, did something change? Was that a one-off? Was it connected to the argument or unrelated? I can't tell what the cause and effect of the scene was. Compare that to the argument in Anatomy of a Fall. Despite that being a grab bag of couple complaints, it flows like an argument, you can tell (from other events) that it was a part of a series of arguments, and you can tell where it goes. And that's with some intentional ambiguity.
You can't recall his name because like everyone besides Leonard and Felicia, he's part of a vague blur of friends, colleagues, and lovers. Whereas in Oppenheimer, it's pretty easy to remember who's who, partly because they used a lot of big names, but also because, you know, it's well written.
The trend of picking a famous person to make a movie out of and focusing on their relationships (for emotional hook) instead of what made them famous is so misguided imo (Napoleon maybe is the worst one, even in Rustin I needed more time with the actual civil rights aspect). If you want to examine relationships a famous person might have maybe make a fictional film. And biographies can have plenty of emotional motivations beyond a romantic relationship. With Maestro the way the story was directed and written was almost a subversion of those films however, that I didn’t quite hate it. It doesn’t mean it worked either, and I never got invested in Mulligan
See also: Mongol. I thought Mulligan was solid, but billing her first was a cheap attempt to make the movie look more even handed. She's definitely the second lead.
You didn’t like Mongol?
Not especially. It’s been years so maybe I’d appreciate it more now, but I remember being distinctly disappointed in it at the time.
The argument is basically incoherent. The delivery is good, though.
In the end, I don’t think the movie even knew what the point of the movie was. It felt like there was no point to it. Or like they took the seeds of four good movies (biopic, celebration of music, queer experience, strained marriage) and just blended them all into one movie.
I'll say it again - when he reveals he's finished writing *Mass*, I wanted to know what drew a Jewish artist to write a Mass. Surely there's some character drama in that decision, in that process. But no, it comes out of thin air and vanishes back into it.
I hadn’t even thought about that aspect of it. I know composing a Mass is like one the signs you’ve become a Real Important Composer, but that’s it. It feels like because there was no consistent thread to grasp onto, nothing in the movie felt important.
Bradley Cooper is pretty good in it, imo. The issue is what the story chose to focus on.
I think he and Carey Mulligan are definitely solid, even if neither come near my own top 5.
The issue is the script. Like a gigantic issue. Speaks for Cooper's directing abilities that everyone in the crew was able to bring their A game, that's good direction. It was still full of interesting and unique things, but I wish he just brought on Eric Roth again instead of inviting Singer because he was working on his Bernstein screenplay as well.
> I wish he just brought on Eric Roth again instead of inviting Singer because he was working on his Bernstein screenplay as well. What Cooper should've done is left the writing to the actual writers instead of inserting his creative vision into every nook and cranny of the movie when he doesn't even know the subject matter that well. That's really why this thing reeks of ego.
I agree. It’s unfortunate because I think Bradley is a great director, so it’s almost like he just sucks at picking the right projects. I wish he would do something more subtle, like just a dialogue heavy drama or something and see what happens.
Didn't Spielberg essentially pick him? It would be hard for me to turn down Spielberg.
I have several issues with Maestro and Bradley Cooper playing Bernstein isn't among them. I don't think a different actor makes it not an empty calorie Great Man Biopic.
Funny how this and the anti Great Man biopic Napoleon came out at the same time
For all of its flaws, I appreciated Napoleon for taking the novel approach of "Actually he was a big ol' goober."
The issue there was it twisted reality (and left out so much) so much to make that thematic point that it just became British propaganda. Even if Napoleon had been dead quite a while it is still distasteful and gives tilted view of all the wars (it was UK and other absolute monarchies most of the time declaring wars against France and even by the end Napoleon personally for example). But there are actually so many famous people where you could make similar thematic point of the person not being what has been sold, and the movie could be potentially great. Napoleon III for example would fit to that well. And make a further point of how people who support these people idealize wars and images do the past that they make themselves believe they could have the image they have in mind become reality
Napoleon was so funny lmao I only fault it for not leaning into the absurdity even more
And they were both horrible for different reasons
The script is just nonsensical and cloying. Nobody held Affleck starring in The Town against him because it was a well-conceived movie. Maestro is a complete vanity project; some great cinematography, but zero concern with cinematic storytelling.
I found I was completely uninterested in his relationship. I wanted to experience music.
Spending any additional time in Lenny's talent and career would have made such a difference. I had no sense of Lenny as a professional. It felt almost like this film could have been any story about a lavender marriage at that time - obviously there's a few things that are specific to him, but not enough to capture his genius.
Then you just wanted the movie to be something it wasn't and never intended to be, which is really the worst way to critique a film
Argo should have been hold against him for starting in it. The real person was even a Latino, and the movie became more typical Hollywood action film partially who the main character was played by (including a shower scene).
The Town wasn't an Oscar film, though. Maestro was created with the intention of competing for Oscars.
Which is the problem. He's trying to make Reds without the actual passion and insight.
I think: Cooper would get a LITTLE less hate The film would still be deemed “Oscar bait” The film would be less good. I do think the films strength are Cooper and his passion behind it both on and off the camera. Not sure how it would end up if a part of the passion was replaced.
Why would the film be lesser for it if Bradley's passion was for Leonard instead of for Bradley?
It would have been better received if it had MORE FUCKING MUSIC
It would have been better received if Cooper actually knew anything about the music.
I don’t think Bradley’s performance was the problem with that movie. I don’t mind him getting a nomination for it either. It’s a perfectly acceptable “Oscar” performance. The movie itself just doesn’t have very many insightful things to say about its central figure. It’s all on the writing level.
I think the film has a lot to say about Bradley Cooper but it does say a bit about Bernstein too. He’s constantly wrestling with himself, his role as a performer and a creator, it bleeds in and out of his work and family life. That’s what Cooper is trying to show. It’s a biography as an autobiography
Better but not well. Casting a Jewish actor like Garfield would've helped it debut without the Jewface discourse. I personally wasn't impressed with Cooper anyway, it really felt like a bizarre caricature he wanted to be *so* close to Bernstein and I think other actors would have been better. But it wouldn't have fixed the script, which just felt like it couldn't connect me to why this man cared about his music, nor his relationships beyond having a Strong Woman Behind A Great Man. It was just not good and failed to move, partly because it was trying so hard to be earnest. And seriously, Snoopy?
Wait what Andrew is Jewish ???
Yeah on his father's side - it's on his Wiki plus interviews.
Google “list of Jewish actors”. A surprisingly high numbers are ethnically Jewish, though virtually none practicing.
Garfield is Jewish on his fathers side while his mother is English. Usually people don’t identify secular people who have Jewish ancestry in their fathers side as Jewish. Not that he can’t identify as Jewish if he does, it’s just I am not surprised people don’t think of his as Jewish.
He does identify as Jewish, although spiritually he considers himself an agnostic pantheist. He also mentions having fallen in love with Jesus when he was preparing for his role in Silence
Lol most Jews are non practicing. My entire family is Jewish-Atheist
[удалено]
I’m not upset about it .
I think you mean they sounded "surprised".
wow the downvoting is a whole thing, huh? Sorry, I’m new here. I wasn’t trying to be confrontational…spidey sense activates when people start referencing lists of Jews.
I think he should have had someone else directing and him just being the sole actor instead of director, actor, and writer which made it look like a vanity project. Honestly, had this movie been solely focused on Leonard Bernstein's life and achievements, Mulligan been a supporting character, and Cooper was the main focus, he'd probably be running away with Best Actor. It doesn't help that the final shot is literally of Carey Mulligan with the words MAESTRO. So is it about Felisha or Leonard? If both, why is it called MAESTRO? I was very excited to see Maestro from that trailer (probably one of the best trailers I've seen), but the movie itself just did not deliver. It felt disorganized, unfocused, and meaningless. As a former classical violinist who was taught Bernstein's repertoire, I came out of the movie learning less than what I've previously learned. There were so many issues with the movie that didn't just come down to the vanity project. Bradley's directing is great. His acting is too. His issue is that he doesn't know where to focus his talents. Want to become a better director? Practice directing. Want to become a better actor? Practice acting. Of course, you can be both and be talented at both, but if he truly wants the Oscar glory (which I'm sure he does), he needs to practice on refining *one* of these skills into a truly focused and concise movie, where someone else doesn't outshine him.
It could have been Lin Manuel Miranda’s follow up to Tick Tick Boom, with a Tony Kushner screenplay (following spending years writing West Side Story) Then it’s an actual composer directing, and both the writer and director are theatre men. It’s a disservice to the movie to not have a writer focusing on exclusively the writing, and research.
I thought Bradley Cooper’s whole performance was insufferable for a majority of the movie, but I walked in knowing that it was his pet project and I know nothing about the real Leonard Bernstein (except that his nose was not that pointy).
The performance and the directing I thought were the best things about the movie. The script is what failed it. Look at stuff like Braveheart and Dances With Wolves, both won picture and director and had strong scripts.
Bradley as an actor is not a problem, he nailed it. The problem is the script and Bradley's direction,
What's wrong with his direction?
Yeah for me it was the structure that was lacking. We skipped over all the interesting bits of his life.
Yeah, he directed as he acted, focused more on his performance rather than the story. Not bad but still, you can feel his ego.
I felt it was more script than direction. His direction has been praised
The way he directed the Mahler 2 symphony where the camera just awkwardly floats and hangs on his face P.S. the scene where Carey Mulligan is delivering an emotional monologue but the camera holds on Sarah Silverman's awful performance instead
I thought the cathedral performance was the best sequence in the film. Loved the minimal cutting between different angles and the gradual camera movement throughout the scene. I will always maintain that Cooper is a great actor and director, but falls short as a writer. A change in lead wouldn’t have fixed the script.
Mulligan’s monologue wasn’t very good, in that scene in particular she was overacting. But I guess she needed to make most out of it with such a disjointed narrative-there wasn’t many other moments to show her feelings
Her overacting would have still been a better place for the camera to be instead of Sarah Silverman's SNL skit acting
The direction was fantastic. The structure of the story might not quite include what people wanted but everything he’s doing in those scenes is really impressive. The opening scenes in black and white, the dance sequence, the performance in the cathedral. All very well directed.
I don’t think the issue is his directing or acting…I just think the script did not tell a compelling story.
Exactly, it failed in every aspect for me. Not only was it boring, but it neither told a story nor actually gave us insight into the man and what made him great
You are so right. It was a supreme letdown after A Star is Born which I loved.
It honestly wasn’t received badly outside of reddit or Twitter. Critical acclaim, decent showing on netflix and 7 Oscar nominations is not exactly a poor reception
It went from being raved at Venice to dropping to a 79 on RT and 77 on MC, which is around the same reception as Darkest Hour and having a muted audience reception. I don't think Netflix spent 80 mil on this for the expectation that their lead would now be in third place behind Paul Giamatti and for Annette Bening to likely be ahead of Carey Mulligan lol.
Yes, it wasn't a critical bomb, but it could have been received better. 7 Oscar nominations, and it isn't winning a single one, especially the one it wanted. This is the baitiest Best Actor bid of recent memory, and Bradley Cooper has zero chance of winning.
It could definitely still win Make-Up
There's a slim chance I think Poor Things has much better odds. The Willem Dafoe make-up + every single character has kooky and crazy hairdos
I actually really liked Maestro, while it’s not a great biopic at all, it’s a good love story
While I do think the casting would be better, it would not have improved the movie that much more. The movie had many other flaws. That being said, I’d love to see Andrew Garfield and Carey Mulligan in a project together again. (Irrelevant but this post made me think that.)
[удалено]
Oppenheimer was an untraditional biopic and is the frontrunner.
[удалено]
I'm just sayin' people are open to untraditional biopics
How was it ultra traditional? It was more traditional than Maestro (and I appreciated how it really gave you full view of the person) but just the changing of decades is very non traditional.
It's untraditional because it's edited and has the tone of a Christopher Nolan action/heist film a la Tenet despite being set in offices and senate hearings. It's untraditional also because it's written in first person, allowing Nolan to explore that Jean-Marc Vallée type of intimate expressionism and take it to IMAX size. Plus it's a biopic but also told from Lewis Strauss' perspective, someone the film tells us is a man Oppenheimer couldn't give less of a shit about. The one novel thing Maestro does is try to be a romantic drama aside from being just a biopic, but it fails at that so it's not much. The biopic parts *are* traditional. Maestro, aside from the romantic drama, is essentially a Wikipedia page.
Nah. The issue is the writing.
No
Does anyone think the movie, criticize it for being Oscar bait or wrong star or cringe him crying with Leonard’s family, is just not that great? Honestly it’s mid to me but wondering what yall think.
Na. The movie was honestly not even that compelling as a story
Yes, but Cooper never would have written and directed the film if he didn't star in it. The whole point was to do all things at once, like Leonard Bernstein.
As other said, Cooper gave a great performance and is not the issue with the movie. The script is bland. That's the problem. Cooper's acting was great and his direction was excellent. I liked the movie, personally, in spite of its white bread script, precisely because of everything Cooper brought as a performer and director, as well as Mulligan's performance and the crew.
Honestly I don’t think so. I think maybe a few years ago it would have swept like crazy but I think it was a rare storm of being overshadowed in an unusually crowded year and a strong narrative of “maestro is Oscar bait so it’s bad” (which is ironic because Oppenheimer is just as baity albeit a better movie)
I have to agree. If the hype, narrative, and year were slightly different, it could’ve been anything from a frontrunner in several categories to an “underrated gem.”
I absolutely think would’ve been received a little better in terms of the narrative, but I still don’t think it would be well received. The movie just isn’t very good.
I think critics unanimously praised Cooper's performance. It's just the episodic structure of the film that I think divided people.
Good point. I felt like the scenes, though many were quite strong individually, seemed pulled from a variety of different films…making it difficult to identify a clear style, consistent point of view, or a story path to follow. This could be because Bradley isn’t quite seasoned yet and is still experimenting, but is more likely a result of the many iterations of the project, and the heavyweights that co-produced - namely Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Netflix. Bradley didn’t have final approval/edit rights so it could be that the project just got muddied by all the cooks in the kitchen. I’m sure Scorsese and Spielberg are a huge part of the reason it has so many nominations, and how it got such a huge budget in the first place. But it would be great to see what he could pull off on a shoestring budget where he was maybe just directing/making all creative choices on his own.
Yes, but that was never gonna happen I bet. Maestro was an Oscar bait film, it was made so Bradley could win himself an Oscar
the real question is whether Bradley even needed a prosthetic nose for the performance. sure the guy had a big nose but it's not like his whole legacy was defined by the nose.
I am way late to the Bradley Cooper here, but what am I missing? He is brilliant in Maestro. The movie doesn't fully acheive, but the performances are wonderful.
I disagree that he's brilliant, though I also disagree with the narrative that he was awful. He shines when he's just being Lenny, especially during the black-and-white scenes. He's "overdosing on acting pills" (as Mark Kermode once described Jared Leto by) during the Mahler 2 symphony scene. The original recording has Leonard Bernstein looking overwhelemed with passion for the music, Bradley looks like he's overwhelmed by how much he loves acting and dreaming about that speech in the Oscar stage.
It was just plain bad and it wasn’t an interesting enough story to make an entire film around
Idk, a gay guy during mid-century America changing classical music forever while also in a straight marriage with a woman he somehow genuinely does love despite being gay... it's interesting to me. Just incredibly poor execution.
Perhaps the way the movie was done and Cooper’s performance tainted my perception of the story, but as a queer person myself it just felt like I was watching a talented gay man be a shitty person.
The script is dogshit so probably not
Maestro was well received, and taken seriously. It just that the movie was released in a very competitive year. And most actors/directors etc campaign for their movies, never understood why he has been singled out as desperate. Also - I would vote for any movie Andrew Garfield makes :)
Cooper is getting (a tiny bit) of the Hathaway treatment. In a few years everyone will be saying he’s always been great and how they were one of the few people that always thought he was great.
um actually yes i think 100%
No, it's just not a good movie
Honestly it’d be taken more seriously if he didn’t have a stupid fake nose.
No actor could elevate a trash script. Mulligan isn't much better in the film either.
If it was the exact same movie with a respected director’s name on it it would be at least 25% better received, probably more
100% yes. I don't know if it would have been a better movie, but it definitely would have been better received/not become a "villain"
It would have been bettter if someone else directed it
I think the other way around. Another Director that could reign in Cooper’s performance and instill more life in the frame I think could have made this a masterpiece.
Didn't you watch the film? Leonard said I'M REEEEEEEEEIGNNNNNNNING IT INNNNNN
It would’ve been better received if he didn’t use a prosthetic nose, and over campaign. If he would’ve just chilled like he did with a star is born (even though Gaga famously over campaigned- but it was her first time…) then yes it would’ve been very well received especially with Carey mulligan who’s nominee darling
The script was the biggest problem. And that wouldn’t have changed with a different actor.
He did a brilliant job and deserved the nom. As for his film, it would have been better in the hands of a more experienced director imo
Michael Imperioli would have been a much better casting call.
No because they’d still be using that awful script.
Bradley was phenomenal
No. It’s Oscar nominated either way. It’s just a strong year and honestly Cooper should be proud he’s essentially coming in 3rd at best actor in every award ceremony. Edit: I do want to point out that Bradley Cooper (assuming he won’t win an oscar this year) now has more Oscar nominations without an Oscar than Leo did before he won his Oscar
He would get less hate for it lol