As a cultural milestone, the Oscars aren't really all that important; sure, we can forever look up who won what in a given year; but the ceremonies themselves are generally forgotten unless something really amazing happens, like a streaker, or a really great one-liner ("You like me, you really like me."). So even though last weekends Oscars are fresh in our minds, the ceremony itself wasn't all that important. Presenters, hosts, all were picked for business reasons, to raise their visibility in a ceremony that, in theory anyway, should be free of outside influence (at least as far as who wins).
NOT GEEK
I was bored, by and large. Anne Hathaway is multi-talented... attractive, yes, which doesn't hurt your chances of being a movie star, but at any given moment she looked poised, comfortable, and energetic. James Franco looked like he'd just been hanging out with Charlie Sheen.
Unlike Neil Patrick Harris, who had a much-deserved career renaissance in the last few years, James Franco's career arrived and died between 1999 and 2002. By the time "Spider-Man 2" came out, his career was over. But kudos to him, Harvard student that he is... he worked hard, applied himself, picked some wise projects, got his name back into the public spotlight, and used his most endearing quality-- weirdness-- to climb back into the public perception. For Round One, it was "let's make him a heart-throb." That didn't work, so now he's something else. And, it should be noted, he IS a talented actor... just not a charismatic one. Which is why he shouldn't host awards shows.
What else can any non-geek say about the evening? It was long, the speeches ranged from boring to okay, with nothing to write home about (except for the one bleep), studio execs and agents got their "products" in front of a camera for a night. Was "The King's Speech" the best movie of the year? It was really, really good.... nothing except it, The Social Network, or Black Swan really had a chance. I didn't see "Winter's Bone." No one did. No one saw "The Shawshank Redemption" in 1994, either. History tends to repeat itself.
GEEK
The most common complain the next day was, "The Social Network got ROBBED!"
Look.
There are ten nominees for best picture, for the second year in a row. We're still feeling the after-effects of the writers strike, because it was two years ago and it takes two years to make a movie. 2009 and 2010 were thin years, cinematically speaking. So you get certain movies that, while good, certainly aren't deserving of a best picture nominee (I actually did watch "The Kids Are All Right," and I stand by my statement). Good movies, but not ones that have a chance of winning. "Winter's Bone" was this years "Precious" in the sense that it was an extremely good film, and well made, but it lacked that... something, that grandiosity, that .... commercial appeal... that will win you the award. Worth watching. But not the "It" movie.
So amongst those left-- The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Social Network, 127 Hours, and I guess even Inception... you have four movies made for the younger demographic, or rather, the same demographic that Hollywood has been making movies for, and only for, since the mid 1980s. And a fifth, The King's Speech, which your grandmother would go see, and enjoy. Also your parents. I enjoyed it, too. Nothing exploded and no one got shot, but it was still a quality film. Beautiful to look at, beautifully acted, and a lovely time at the movies.
So if you're young and hip, you voted for one of the other four, or maybe the fifth. Your vote is spread out five ways.
If you're old and traditional, you vote for The King's Speech.
Which is how we got a winner.
But to be fair, the other films were not perfect. "The Social Network" had an overabundance of CGI and too little attention paid to the performances, specifically Andrew Garfield, who is generic in every way, and Justin Timberlake, of whom the audience is always quite aware, throughout the movie, "Hey, that's Justin Timberlake."
"Black Swan" had a powerful, jaw-dropping performance at its center, but was a bit fuzzy around the edges. The conceit of re-telling the ballet "Swan Lake" was clever, but outside of that, it wasn't much different from "The Wrestler." It was an old story, re-told in a brilliant way, but you'll notice the last couple years the Academy is choosing uplifting movies for Best Picture, especially post-Obama. Black Swan is an actress' dream job, but the movie itself is a bigger picture, and a fuzzier one.
Same with "127 Hours."
The ACTUAL best movies of the year, and it's been true for as long as I can remember-- instead of looking at the Best Picture winner, look to the winners of Best Original Screenplay, and Best Adapted Screenplay. THOSE are the actual best movies of the year. Those are the best stories, the most wonderfully realized, the most fun movies to watch.
Best Picture is something entirely different. Everything must come together: EVERYTHING. Not just the plot, but the dialogue to tell it. The actors realization of the characters. The lighting, the costumes, the shot selection, the blocking of the actors. Music. Locations. Truly everything.
And I can't think of anyone who cares about all that stuff. *I* don't. I'm a film geek, and I'm watching the cinematography and the costumes and the lighting and the makeup, but... what makes one better than the other? No idea. I don't do their jobs.
But Hollywood people do.
"The Social Network" did not win, in part because of what I said before, but also because David Fincher cannot direct actors. He's part of the new and current school of filmmakers, who are brilliant with effects and shot composition, but have no idea what to do with actors, how to get a good performance out of them, or where to have them stand or move. Was the movie nominated for acting awards? Yes. It's Aaron Sorkin writing the dialogue, and if you can't act, you won't survive the first sixty seconds. So you hire an actor and let them say the lines. Which is what happens in the movie. And then Andrew Garfield looks confused, Jesse Eisenberg looks cranky, Armie Hammer looks angry, and Rooney Mara cries. Cut, print, how did the lighting look?
I don't say all that in ignorance: I'm perfectly aware that the opening scene, where Zuckerberg breaks up with his girlfriend, required 98 or 99 takes. At that point, I am convinced, it is NOT about the performance. It's about the placement of the actors, who moves his or her head when, what is happening in the background. By take 15, the performance is rote. There is nothing new to learn. You don't get to take 99 unless you're micro-managing, or are looking at other things.
But I digress. I fucking loved the movie and I fucking loved all the Best Picture nominees that I saw (7 out of 10, with Winter's Bone still to be crossed off the list... probably The Fighter, too).
Just I see all these rants the next day, every year, going "(blah) got robbed!!"
I've been watching the Oscars a long time, and even when something goes wrong (which happens less often then the pop culture would lead you to believe), there's a reason for it.
In 1995, Best Supporting Actor went to Kevin Spacey for "The Usual Suspects." I maintain then, as I do now, that he won the award because of some perceived masterwork he did in hiding his true identity from the audience. In all reality, he was just saying the lines, and the secret being hidden is due in no small part to the talent of the director and screenwriter, not Spacey. And his career since then will back me up on that. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt was nominated for "12 Monkeys," was brilliant in it, but lost because he was perceived as a generic pretty-boy, and also no one saw his movie. "The Usual Suspects" was more popular, and seen by more Academy members than "12 Monkeys," so that was that.
In 2001, "A Beautiful Mind" won Best Picture, despite being (1) not Ron Howards best movie, and (2) not a very good movie anyway. It did not follow its own internal logic, and the screenwriter stole everything that was 'clever' about it from other genres. The screenwriter who, by the way, also wrote "Batman and Robin." This is not a talented man. Just one with friends in the business.
The point? No, the Best So-and-So doesn't always win, but there's never NOT a reason for it. Ron Howard won because he'd been making brilliant movies for over a decade; Kevin Spacey won because his movie was damn good, and he was given more to do than Gabriel Byrne.
But no one remembers that. They remember who won, and if the movie was good or not.
So in a year, or more likely, in a week, we'll have forgotten everything about that rushed, over-produced, over-long show. But the facts are these: "The Social Network" was the best story adapted from another medium, "The King's Speech" was the best original story. I loved them both. You probably did, too.
Or, y'know, if you didn't, then there's always "Drive Angry 3-D." Shit blows up, and there's nekkid women in it.
We are officially OUT of awards season. And there's something for everybody here.
No comments:
Post a Comment