REFLECTIONS ON THE BEST PICTURE OF THE YEAR
March 9th 2010 18:37
I gave up watching the Academy Awards when I was 11. They put me to sleep, while the campy production numbers were embarrassing. And without fail, most of the films I supported never won.
That said, this year saw a bumper crop of prestigious films nominated, many of them critically acclaimed upstarts with moderate grosses, if even that. Many people say this wouldn’t have happened if the academy, in an act of seeming generosity, chose not to double the number of best picture nominees from five to 10. The more cynical observers have said that this was nothing more than a ploy to draw viewers to an overblown, self-congratulatory pageant whose audience has steadily thinned with the advent of the Web, social media, and the fact that most of the time the ceremony is just plain boring and cheesy, unless the host’s last name is Crystal. That’s the cynics’ view, and I’m inclined to agree with them, based on the write-ups of past Oscar telecasts I’ve read.
If I ran the Oscars, I’d do something more anarchic, something along the lines of the MTV Movie Awards in terms of giving it a surfeit of humor and keeping things brisk. All the presenters would be comedians (good ones) and there would be more skits. Keep ‘em laughing—constantly. Some would argue this robs the event of all credibility, but the awards became a parody of themselves long ago. That’s just IMHO.
Still, the point of this essay is to focus on the fact that some of the nominees were smaller films that I am guessing few people like me have seen, either because they were discouraged by the subject matter or the distance they had to travel to see them. But I can’t speak for an entire demographic. I’m white, middle-class, approaching the big 4-0, and have a deep love of film and geekstuff, with a special affinity for more fantastical movies than films about the real world. That does not mean I didn’t want to see THE HURT LOCKER. I’ve been a fan of Kathryn Bigelow since NEAR DARK, and it was her involvement that made me want to see it, more than anything else.
But along the way, my enthusiasm to see the movie that took home best picture and best director statuettes on Sunday night flagged. It didn’t evaporate—it’s in my Netflix queue—but there was a prolonged period in which its unavailability diluted my interest. Being a smaller film, with a budget of $11 million or so, it did not have the marketing muscle to get an instant distribution to 1,000 theaters, like say, oh…COP OUT. I chose COP OUT as an example of the fact that critical acclaim means nothing. Nothing. A critically lauded film without major star wattage or big-ass special effects is deemed a handicap. Your average studio executive assumes nobody wants to see such films because he or she has so relentlessly marketed populist entertainments to audiences that there is no room for a middle ground. Also, excluding the constant that your average executive hasn’t got a thimbleful of artistic vision, the sobering fact is that they’re not paid to be artistic. They’re employees of culturally bereft corporations, and their jobs depend on delivering product, not art—product that has to sell and turn a profit. That’s why I’ve been blitzed by ads for COP OUT while the only media exposure I had to THE HURT LOCKER was a few mentions on the Independent Film Channel and a clip shown on The Colbert Report (or maybe it was The Daily Show, as my memory’s fuzzy). The bottom line is that the diseased COP OUT stands to make more money than THE HURT LOCKER, if it hasn’t already. But I hope I lose that bet.
Even so, as time went on and THE HURT LOCKER accrued praise and Oscar buzz, it eventually found its way to my local multiplex. So it was accessible, but by that time I felt less primed to see it, my interests having been diverted to bigger, more spectacular fare…namely, AVATAR. I would say it was less a matter of having a short attention span than the fact that it was a James Cameron film, his first since TITANIC. Still, I consider myself a discerning fellow, and have purposefully avoided entertainments such as TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN and 2012, which have nothing to say other than it looks really cool to blow sh*t up. AVATAR at least tries to be about something, and I enjoyed it.
Still, I saw better films this year. One of those films was DISTRICT 9, which lo and behold also made the list for best picture. AVATAR I like a lot, but DISTRICT 9 I love. It is grimmer, grimier, and more brutal than AVATAR, and the issues it raises are more of-the-moment. It also lacks an upbeat ending and features more complex characters than AVATAR. It doesn’t try to be an audience-pleaser, which is the template for most science fiction and fantasy blockbusters these days.
The same with Terry Gilliam’s THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, which makes up in imagination what it lacks in scope. I was luckier with PARNASSUS than I was with most so-called “specialty” films, in that I saw it at a special preview held at a local cinema. It eventually went into wider release and has done well internationally, but the academy all but ignored it except for two technical nominations (both of which it lost). PARNASSUS had more going for it than THE HURT LOCKER, as far as I was concerned, because of its fantastic elements and geek cred; and it had more to offer than AVATAR in terms of its unique story and characters. Let’s face it, plot-wise AVATAR is nothing new, and I agree with many critical reviews that it’s basically DANCES WITH WOLVES.
But moving away from THE HURT LOCKER for a moment, allow me to focus on another best picture nominee that I haven’t seen and that, I confess, I have no desire to see: PRECIOUS. I haven’t seen it simply for the fact that I don’t think I can stomach it. It is, from what I’ve read, wonderfully written, directed, and acted, but I don’t think I can handle the harrowing depictions of abuse and degradation. I’ve avoided films like THE MAGDALENE SISTERS and THE GREY ZONE, despite their critical plaudits, for similar reasons. I recognize that it’s something of a knee-jerk reaction in me, but depressing movies—even those that end on an inspiring note—can be an ordeal to sit through. It’s a mindset like this that led to people avoiding films that dealt with the war in Iraq, however slantwise they approached the issue. It’s a bias I’m comfortable with and that I can afford to indulge for the most part. I raise it as another reason why some people may avoid critically acclaimed films: they’re just too real for them to handle.
But there are mitigating circumstances: I may be willing to see such pictures if a director I really admire—Scorsese, Eastwood, Lynch, Cronenberg,—makes them. If Gilliam directed PRECIOUS, I’d rush to see it in a heartbeat, Junior Mints in one hand, a Kleenex in another. Again, it’s geek cred in action.
It’s not hard to imagine that smaller films like AN EDUCATION, THE HURT LOCKER, and THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS could be very, very successful from a financial perspective if the studios had faith in them—the faith to market and distribute them aggressively. The major studios can’t plead poverty—Hollywood is flush, and the film industry’s profits have been steadily climbing even during the recession years. AVATAR’s marketing push—domestic and overseas—has been nothing short of demagoguery, while THE HURT LOCKER’s ad budget is a pittance in comparison.
But I suppose amid all this talk of money and popularity, the real test of a film is its longevity. Sure, AVATAR is the biggest moneymaker of all time (for now), but will people still remember it in 2060? Or will they remember THE HURT LOCKER and PRECIOUS? My money’s on AVATAR for the sheer size and spectacle, not to mention the technical achievement in terms of 3D and special effects—but if that’s all that truly matters to most audiences now, then we’ve come a long way down. Since THE HURT LOCKER won the big Oscars, most of the critical focus has been on the David vs. Goliath aspects of its triumph, and the selection of a woman for best director for the first time in academy history. I would hope—assuming I agree that THE HURT LOCKER rightfully earned its kudos after I watch it—that the film becomes more than just a historical footnote.
Because in the end, an Oscar win is no guarantee of a long and fruitful collective memory, even for the films and performances that truly deserve it.
Alex Schor
The Psychocinemapath!
That said, this year saw a bumper crop of prestigious films nominated, many of them critically acclaimed upstarts with moderate grosses, if even that. Many people say this wouldn’t have happened if the academy, in an act of seeming generosity, chose not to double the number of best picture nominees from five to 10. The more cynical observers have said that this was nothing more than a ploy to draw viewers to an overblown, self-congratulatory pageant whose audience has steadily thinned with the advent of the Web, social media, and the fact that most of the time the ceremony is just plain boring and cheesy, unless the host’s last name is Crystal. That’s the cynics’ view, and I’m inclined to agree with them, based on the write-ups of past Oscar telecasts I’ve read.
If I ran the Oscars, I’d do something more anarchic, something along the lines of the MTV Movie Awards in terms of giving it a surfeit of humor and keeping things brisk. All the presenters would be comedians (good ones) and there would be more skits. Keep ‘em laughing—constantly. Some would argue this robs the event of all credibility, but the awards became a parody of themselves long ago. That’s just IMHO.
Still, the point of this essay is to focus on the fact that some of the nominees were smaller films that I am guessing few people like me have seen, either because they were discouraged by the subject matter or the distance they had to travel to see them. But I can’t speak for an entire demographic. I’m white, middle-class, approaching the big 4-0, and have a deep love of film and geekstuff, with a special affinity for more fantastical movies than films about the real world. That does not mean I didn’t want to see THE HURT LOCKER. I’ve been a fan of Kathryn Bigelow since NEAR DARK, and it was her involvement that made me want to see it, more than anything else.
But along the way, my enthusiasm to see the movie that took home best picture and best director statuettes on Sunday night flagged. It didn’t evaporate—it’s in my Netflix queue—but there was a prolonged period in which its unavailability diluted my interest. Being a smaller film, with a budget of $11 million or so, it did not have the marketing muscle to get an instant distribution to 1,000 theaters, like say, oh…COP OUT. I chose COP OUT as an example of the fact that critical acclaim means nothing. Nothing. A critically lauded film without major star wattage or big-ass special effects is deemed a handicap. Your average studio executive assumes nobody wants to see such films because he or she has so relentlessly marketed populist entertainments to audiences that there is no room for a middle ground. Also, excluding the constant that your average executive hasn’t got a thimbleful of artistic vision, the sobering fact is that they’re not paid to be artistic. They’re employees of culturally bereft corporations, and their jobs depend on delivering product, not art—product that has to sell and turn a profit. That’s why I’ve been blitzed by ads for COP OUT while the only media exposure I had to THE HURT LOCKER was a few mentions on the Independent Film Channel and a clip shown on The Colbert Report (or maybe it was The Daily Show, as my memory’s fuzzy). The bottom line is that the diseased COP OUT stands to make more money than THE HURT LOCKER, if it hasn’t already. But I hope I lose that bet.
Even so, as time went on and THE HURT LOCKER accrued praise and Oscar buzz, it eventually found its way to my local multiplex. So it was accessible, but by that time I felt less primed to see it, my interests having been diverted to bigger, more spectacular fare…namely, AVATAR. I would say it was less a matter of having a short attention span than the fact that it was a James Cameron film, his first since TITANIC. Still, I consider myself a discerning fellow, and have purposefully avoided entertainments such as TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN and 2012, which have nothing to say other than it looks really cool to blow sh*t up. AVATAR at least tries to be about something, and I enjoyed it.
Still, I saw better films this year. One of those films was DISTRICT 9, which lo and behold also made the list for best picture. AVATAR I like a lot, but DISTRICT 9 I love. It is grimmer, grimier, and more brutal than AVATAR, and the issues it raises are more of-the-moment. It also lacks an upbeat ending and features more complex characters than AVATAR. It doesn’t try to be an audience-pleaser, which is the template for most science fiction and fantasy blockbusters these days.
The same with Terry Gilliam’s THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS, which makes up in imagination what it lacks in scope. I was luckier with PARNASSUS than I was with most so-called “specialty” films, in that I saw it at a special preview held at a local cinema. It eventually went into wider release and has done well internationally, but the academy all but ignored it except for two technical nominations (both of which it lost). PARNASSUS had more going for it than THE HURT LOCKER, as far as I was concerned, because of its fantastic elements and geek cred; and it had more to offer than AVATAR in terms of its unique story and characters. Let’s face it, plot-wise AVATAR is nothing new, and I agree with many critical reviews that it’s basically DANCES WITH WOLVES.
But moving away from THE HURT LOCKER for a moment, allow me to focus on another best picture nominee that I haven’t seen and that, I confess, I have no desire to see: PRECIOUS. I haven’t seen it simply for the fact that I don’t think I can stomach it. It is, from what I’ve read, wonderfully written, directed, and acted, but I don’t think I can handle the harrowing depictions of abuse and degradation. I’ve avoided films like THE MAGDALENE SISTERS and THE GREY ZONE, despite their critical plaudits, for similar reasons. I recognize that it’s something of a knee-jerk reaction in me, but depressing movies—even those that end on an inspiring note—can be an ordeal to sit through. It’s a mindset like this that led to people avoiding films that dealt with the war in Iraq, however slantwise they approached the issue. It’s a bias I’m comfortable with and that I can afford to indulge for the most part. I raise it as another reason why some people may avoid critically acclaimed films: they’re just too real for them to handle.
But there are mitigating circumstances: I may be willing to see such pictures if a director I really admire—Scorsese, Eastwood, Lynch, Cronenberg,—makes them. If Gilliam directed PRECIOUS, I’d rush to see it in a heartbeat, Junior Mints in one hand, a Kleenex in another. Again, it’s geek cred in action.
It’s not hard to imagine that smaller films like AN EDUCATION, THE HURT LOCKER, and THE IMAGINARIUM OF DR. PARNASSUS could be very, very successful from a financial perspective if the studios had faith in them—the faith to market and distribute them aggressively. The major studios can’t plead poverty—Hollywood is flush, and the film industry’s profits have been steadily climbing even during the recession years. AVATAR’s marketing push—domestic and overseas—has been nothing short of demagoguery, while THE HURT LOCKER’s ad budget is a pittance in comparison.
But I suppose amid all this talk of money and popularity, the real test of a film is its longevity. Sure, AVATAR is the biggest moneymaker of all time (for now), but will people still remember it in 2060? Or will they remember THE HURT LOCKER and PRECIOUS? My money’s on AVATAR for the sheer size and spectacle, not to mention the technical achievement in terms of 3D and special effects—but if that’s all that truly matters to most audiences now, then we’ve come a long way down. Since THE HURT LOCKER won the big Oscars, most of the critical focus has been on the David vs. Goliath aspects of its triumph, and the selection of a woman for best director for the first time in academy history. I would hope—assuming I agree that THE HURT LOCKER rightfully earned its kudos after I watch it—that the film becomes more than just a historical footnote.
Because in the end, an Oscar win is no guarantee of a long and fruitful collective memory, even for the films and performances that truly deserve it.
Alex Schor
The Psychocinemapath!
| 39 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
--SciFi Shrink