Why wasn't there a single oscar nomination. I wonder if it has something to do with historical controversy.
shareWhile it starts great and the Western "road movie" plot is full of potential, some elements are too contrived/unlikely (e.g. the whole fur trapper episode) or wannabe heavy (e.g. Sgt. Metz' apology in the rain) and the film just wallows in unrelenting glumness. Still, there is some good in it and you'll discern a glimmer here or there. It's just that after the excellent set-up, I thought I was in for a great Western, but it wasn't to be. The script needed serious rewriting.
shareThe fur trapper episode was necessary in order to develop the relationship between the Captain and Chief Yellow Hawk. It is also necessary the the fur trappers would be one dimensional because the plot is crowded, there is no room for the development of more characters. It is pivotally important that the Captain and the Chief's relationship be incrementally changed throughout the film.
At in the beginning of the film, the Captain is complaining about how the Chief split a fellow soldier from stem to stern and about how such an act is savage. At the end of the film, the Captain himself, overcome with rage, splits a white man from stem to stern. Such an act would not be justified without all the intermediary episodes.
It just seemed like the fur trapper part was awkwardly shoehorned into the story. It came and left just as quickly, striking me as contrived writing.
So the movie needed more finesse in execution (if that meant adding 15 minutes to the runtime, so be it). Plus it was too morose for its own good. The Western wilderness was a hard life back then -- I get it -- but people cracked a smile now and then or even laughed uproariously. Occasional levity is a coping mechanism. I'm not suggesting it should be a comedy, of course, just that the flick needed more balance. It was heavy to the point of overkill; like the creators were trying too hard to convey their message.
But I liked your explanation and will give it another chance soon. Sometimes I change my mind on movies after an honest reevaluation with a different frame of mind.
Indian movies break the tension when people break out in spontaneous song and dance. Bollywood has a winning formula. I'd love to watch a Bollywood version of Hostiles.
shareIndian movies go too far in that regard IMHO, although what you say reveals why they include those sequences.
I was thinking more in terms of, say, "The Hunting Party" from 1971. It's a serious, realistic Western about a grim situation: A school teacher is kidnapped by a group of outlaws so the leader can learn to read & write. Meanwhile, her husband & cronies are hellbent on picking 'em off one-by-one with state-of-the-art long-range rifles. As the attractive school marm gets to know the leader & his best friend she slowly discovers that they're not outright evil. They're basically goodhearted people trapped in a tough lifestyle. Within this context the creators throw in an amusing peach-eating sequence, which smacked of reality.
I don't think "The Hunting Party" is great or anything (I gave it a 6/10). I'm just saying that "Hostiles" needed at least one scene like this. Or maybe there is such a scene and I forgot about it (I haven't seen it since it debuted in theaters in early 2018).
I agree this was a fantastic film. I actually think the reason it was denied any nominations was due to the fact that it was distributed by a fledgling film studio whose only previous releases were 47 Meters Down and Friend Request. Entertainment Studios just doesn't have the clout to get Oscar recognition.
I bet if Hostiles had been distributed by one of the major studios, say Warner Brothers, it would have gotten at least 3 or 4 Oscar nominations.
If Ben Afflac produced and starred in Chris Bale's role he probably would have bought an Oscar just like he did with "Argo" which was a mediocre movie imho
shareIt should be a western everyone wants to see again on par with unforgiven.
shareTo get Oscar attention, movies usually need a fuck ton of marketing and promotional campaigns to attract Oscar votes. 90% of the time when a critically acclaimed movie doesn't get a single Oscar nomination, it's because the studio/producers didn't want to spend time and/or money into trying to sell the movie to Oscar voters. John Carpenter wrote in one of his books that Halloween 1978 was in possible consideration to get some Oscar noms for music, editing, and cinematography, but producer Moustapha Akkad didn't want to spend money on pushing for an Oscar campaign. I've heard something similar happened to the movie Portrait of a Lady on Fire.
share