by Sam Juliano
Is the Coen Brothers’ True Grit now officially the “Oscar” film for 2010? Will the western re-make now lose it’s luster in the eyes of those who look down their nose at anything and everything Oscar and awards shows, and eternally see the embrace of the Golden boy as the artistic kiss of death? In a heated e mail exchange with several members of the Wonders in the Dark fraternity a few days ago, it was suggested that David Fincher’s The Social Network was an “Oscar” film, because of it’s wide popularity among critics’ organizations. While that declaration was foolhardy both for the bankrupsy of its implications and for the subsequent nominations announced early this morning on the west coast, it underscores the intense contempt for the annual awards and for those who cast ballots.
Truth is the Oscars, while frustrating and often brutal in their omissions and ludicrous rules and regulations, are no better or no worse than any other groups that gives awards. Serious cineastes find them mediocre at best, and in any given year one will both celebrate and mourn the nomination scroll. This year’s nominations have resurrected the spectre of Joel and Ethan Coen’s lovingly mounted western True Grit, vaulting it into a serious bid to win top honors with Tom Hooper’s exquisite period piece The King’s Speech, which leads the field with 12 nods. This unexpected development has now affirned the “Oscar” film The Social Network as the “critics” film (a fact I’ve always known) and has reconstructed the long allure of the costume and period drama.
What will ultimately happen on Oscar night? I still see Fincher’s film as a slight favorite over the two nomination heavyweights, though some are now thinking that The King’s Speech may prevail. In a close race, True Grit could well sneak into the winner’s circle. As always the nominations have resulted in some inexplicable snubs. The most laughable is the nomination of Michelle Williams for Best Actress, while the far better Ryan Gosling sits on the sidelines. Of course the overriding reason Gosling was left off has more to do with the stronger comeptition in the lead actor’s race, but it flies in the face of sane judgement. Once again the foreign film list is preposterous in a year of strong work from abroad. Academy rules prevented Giovanna Mezzogiorno and Tilda Swinton from getting nominations, (shameful) and a great performance like the one given by Edgar Ramirez in Carlos was passed over by perennial favorite Javier Bardem for Biutiful. On the positive side was the showing of the exceptional inde The Winter’s Bone. Young hattie Seinfeld much deserved her nomination for her spunky performance in True Grit as well.
So what has changed? In truth, very little. The Oscars, like the voters who decide them are a frustrating blend of the popular and the eclectic. Hence, they’ll always be cheers and jeers at the nomination announcement. Stay tuned.
A very telling editorial Sam. And I caught your subtle sarcasm. Personally I have no problem at all with “True Grit” winning the top award. I’d have to predict “The King’s Speech” to win at the wire.
I think that ragging on the Oscars is easy. The show is a travesty and some of their policy making is insulting. But like you say there is good and bad.
Thanks Frank, for the excellent comment. My sarcasm was minor though. We have a close team here and if the Oscars are our point of mild disagreement (if it can even be called that) we’ll be in good shape! Ha!
Haha some sarcasm which clearly is directed at me. Regardless of what True Grit wins or doesn’t win I will stand by it as one of the 5 or 6 great films released this year that I have so far had the pleasure of seeing. Along with Animal Kingdom, Winter’s Bone, Carlos, A Prophet, and Black Swan……..
TRUE GRIT is a winner Maurizio, I never disputed that. it didn’t make my Top 10, but it is an accomplished film that I can understand winning favor with many.
Oh I meant sarcasm more in the pompous assumptions that were made by me towards The Social Network. I know you liked True Grit.
Was this quick or what. Though one could have seen this from a mile, I was surprised to see no editing nom for INCEPTION, cinematography for 127 HOURS, score for THE GHOST WRITER and art direction for BLACK SWAN. I would have bet that they’d win even.
Every one of those JAFB, would have surely been deserving, that’s for sure.
Yeah, we can thank Julia Roberts for Bardem’s nomination. She campaigned hard for him and it looks like it actually made a difference. Too bad about CARLOS. If only they didn’t have that rule about a film being ineligible if released on TV first. Also surprised to see Christopher Nolan snubbed for Best Director (again) in favor of Tom Hooper and THE KING’S SPEECH?! blech.
I just used your Julia Roberts comment underneath here J.D. Thanks as always for the astute insights!
Nolan should have been nominated for Memento and The Prestige if anything. Snubbed for Inception is no big deal.
I certainly agree with you about MEMENTO and THE PRESTIGE but I also felt that he was robbed for INCEPTION – his most ambitious film to date and just in technical terms it was quite an accomplishment which I think he should been nominated. Not that it would’ve mattered as Best Director is down to Aronofsky and Fincher.
Contrary to what others may think, True Grit’s 10 nominations was not a surprise to me. However, I don’t think it has a chance of winning best picture. I also expected that The King’s Speech would receive the most nominations and that The Social Network would get from 8 to 10. The biggest surprise to me, tallywise, is the relatively lean showing of Black Swan at 5 nods. I’d expected it would receive more nominations but wasn’t surprised that it didn’t receive recognition for its screenplay.
That said, I still think The Social Network has the edge for best picture. Anyone who follows the Oscars probably knows that the most nominations doesn’t necessarly translate to a best picture win. I believe that the PGA win for The King’s Speech is not predictive, in this case, of a best picture Oscar, though I’d feel more comfortable in this prediction had Social Network received both sound nominations, art direction, and (especially) Andrew Garfield. However, a picture/director split (TKS/TSN) is quite possible in this overall pattern of nominations.
Unlike Sam, I was pleased to see Michelle Williams on the list. Yes, I did like Gosling’s performance, as well, but I can understand the Academy’s collective logic in not including him. I’m happy for Bardem, too, and relieved that Duvall was not included though he did respectable enough work in Get Low.
I’m happy to see Steinfeld — even if it’s in supporting actress — and believe she’s the “surprise” frontrunner. I don’t feel that Leo’s performance jives that well with Academy taste, and she’s also competing against a fellow nominee (Adams), who deserves it more in my opinion. The Coens have every reason to rejoice, though I think that victorywise we’re looking at 1 possible win (Steinfeld) and possibly (only possibly) a “career” win for Deakins — but don’t count on it.
In light of the nod or John Hawkes, I see his inclusion draining a few votes from Christian Bale (who would’ve benefited from Garfield in place of Hawkes). My current theory is that Geoffrey Rush has the most to gain from this.
Christopher Nolan just doesn’t get any respect (director snub). Someone on Twitter said he should make a holocaust film in order to be nominated. . . .
Although I haven’t yet seen Another Year, I’m sad to see the film marginalized. On the up side, I’m glad Winter’s Bone edged out the good-but-not-great The Town. And I guess I’ll have to live with the rather undeserved acclaim for The Fighter. To me, the only Oscarworthy thing about that film is the performance of Amy Adams.
Stupendous assessment here Pierre.
I think I may have expressed myself poorly, but what I meant tio say is that Gosling was the big star of BLUE VALENTINE and deserved the nomination first and foremost. Williams gave a fine performance too, but nominating her without Gosling is terribly unfair. But I know Julia Roberts campaigned heavily for Javier Bardem, or at least that’s the inside word.
While no Oscar fan I did review the list and was happy to see the academy recognize Winter’s Bone, John Hawkes, and Jackie Weaver……
Maurizio, the naming of Hawks, Weaver and WINTER’S BONE were among the best things about the noms. Absolutely! Hawks and Weaver were long shots at that.
I called all 10 nominees for best picture.
Nolan’s snub for best director is ridiculous when you look back at how his style was present in Inception (as a real auteur should), when in True Grit, the Coen’s where consumed by the genre and show a great technique but no style whatsoever.
“The Fighter” over “Black Swan” for script? You kidding me?
Once again I’m ashamed of Oscar decissions.
At least, I have two ocassions to take my vengeance. One, in the 10 Days of Oscar, in which I review every movie nominated for best picture on the course of 10 days, being the last day the day of the Oscars transmission.
Second, Frank Awards. My personal batch of awards with different categories and my own rules (pure 2010 movies only) those are awarded the next day after the Oscars. Anyone who wants can participate on them. I’ll need an announcement.
There is abook out there called “Alternate Oscars.” It’s a good read.
Yep, Peter, I have that Danny Peary volume. It’s very good, though the latest choices tend to be too obscure and snooty for the scope taken on.
Jaime, I am definitely looking ahead enthusiastically to your planned “10 Days of Oscar” series at EXODUS: 8:2!!!!
Jaime, I think it’s a given that AMPAS will not behave like we would want them to. They have their own values. They’re not a critics group. To me it’s a fascinating look at our culture — the good and the bad — and an opportunity to have fun watching it unfold, warts and all.
I agree with this assessment Pierre.
So, “Summer Wars” wasn’t nominated for animated feature? That’s just plain pathetic. I now have absolutely no reason to even pay attention to the awards.
Oh, and nothing for “Tron Legacy”, either? Not for special-effects or the design awards? Hell, not even for the score? Trent Reznor gets nominated for “The Social Network”, but Daft Punk gets left in the rain?
Eh. My only sane conclusion, after all these years, is that movies that don’t go to the Oscars, or don’t win’em, are just too cool for those suits in Hollywood, man. Let’s blow this bumblefuck squaresville town and hit the road.
Noe’s work on ENTER THE VOID is better Direction (on any grounds: experimenting, expression, technique, etc) then all those nominated. I’d bet at least half of the Academy voters didn’t make it to seeing that one though.
And I’d agree on the Daft Punk mention, though Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross score also deserves the nomination it got.
Bob I agree about Daft Punk. Nothing will beat Reznor’s awesome score (the best thing about Fincher’s film in my eyes) but they should be nominated. It would of been cool to see them in the crowd wearing some crazy futuristic outfit!!
Jamie regardless of how good Enter The Void is or isn’t, the Oscars has always been about rewarding english language films.
Yep, Maurizio, the exclusion of foreign language films and performance is the true blight of the Oscars. Where was Ms. Mezzogiorno?
Sam I see it less a blight and more of a long standing reality/criteria. It would probably be less annoying if better english language films won though….
I’m sure other countries have their own Oscars and allow their native films to win. I think I read somewhere that Animal Kingdom was the big winner in Australia.
Indeed Maurizio. The French are perhaps the most notorious “homers” with their Caesars.
The most magnanimous worldwide have always been the Brits. In 1987 they bypassed their beloved HOPE AND GLORY to give the top prize to the French JEAN DE FLORETTE. But they’ve been pleasingly consistent right along.
Noe deserves a nom, I’ll wager. Still, I’m surprised “Tron Legacy” didn’t get anything except a damn sound editing thing. “Avatar” bulldozed its way through all the technical awards last year, but it’s not like its visuals were all that interesting once you understood the how. TL might not’ve been a “great film”, but at least it looked damn good. A hell of a lot better than “Inception”, anyway.
Everybody always rails against the Oscars to show mental superiority. But who are these people who are doing the railing? They seem to believe they are smarter than everybody else, when they are essentially only ‘critics’ themselves. I say get over yourselves. What you ‘think’ is not always what others think.
It’s the old ‘my opinion is better than your opinion.’ I think I got past that when I was 12.
Sure the Oscars are dumb, but no dumber than those who attempt to dismiss them with an air of superiority. I see the independents and the foreign films as often as anybody else. So what? Tell me something I don’t already know.
I’m surprised that Oscar Man Dennis hasn’t invaded this thread yet. He’s the real representative for AMPAS.
If the Oscar committee chose five independent and foreign films for best picture, people will say they still suck because they left out this or left out that. You can’t win when you are dealing with inflated egos.
Ah, yes. The ‘people who criticize the Oscars are just trying to sound smart and superior, but people who do the same by criticizing the criticizers AREN’T trying to sound smart or superior’. Nice slight of hand, but it’s still the same.
I’m not trying to sound smart, I’m just saying that in any universe where cinema is valued, THE FIGHTER isn’t one of the 10 best films made in 2010.
And isn’t the whole idea of judging art as if it’s an Olympic event (with the ‘gold’ being the Oscar) with a sanctioned body (here the AMPAS) acting as the almighty opinion completely run counter to your point “It’s the old ‘my opinion is better than your opinion.’ I think I got past that when I was 12.” I guess you can’t get over your argument enough to even see how fraud it is with circular proclamations. Perhaps you’re yet to turn 13?
……Ah, yes. The ‘people who criticize the Oscars are just trying to sound smart and superior, but people who do the same by criticizing the criticizers AREN’T trying to sound smart or superior’. Nice slight of hand, but it’s still the same…….
I’m not defending the Oscars, I’m just trying to stop the imbecillic whining, as if the complainers were uncovering some intellectual revelation. I am not looking for credit for ‘criticizing the complainers’ I am just responding to what Sam has indicated has been going on behind the scenes. So I take it then that I am not allowed to take issue with the those who take issue? You think you’re the only person who figured out the Oscars have some serious problems?
You mean YOU don’t like The Fighter, not the universe you live in. Appears that just about everybody else has stated and written otherwise. I haven’t seen the film yet, but I’ve heard almost all positive. This is what I meant when I said that some believe their opinion is all that counts. Smug? You bet. And then some.
Sorry but we are not judging art and the validity of the awards in this discussion, so no it doesn’t really run counter. I am not the biggest fan of awards of any kind. We are discussing the matter of the nominations and whether they at least partially reflect the value of cinema in 2010.
If there is any fraud, it’s your arrogance from the get go.
Get over yourself buddy. The world doesn’t revolve around you.
“Sorry but we are not judging art and the validity of the awards in this discussion, so no it doesn’t really run counter.”
How do you figure? We are talking about the Oscars… which (used to at least) exist to judge art and validate the form and those that worked in the form.
As long as you are propping yourself up as the person to keep all the dissenters in line I’d say your initial post is quite arrogant. Believe me, my little voice in the blogosphere isn’t going to do ANYTHING to the massive institution that is the Oscars, so you’re defending their arrogance is easy, arrogant, and shill-ish all at once. Quite a trifecta. Sorry, I like art and individualistic, personal cinema, I see no problem with championing it, and hoping it gets its due.
You wanna discuss art as it applies to Oscar, fine. We are not discussing that here. We are discussing the choices made by the Academy. You are attempting to apply your personal opinion to some kind of factual evidence. Sorry, but I find that arrogant.
Of course I was also arrogant in my original post. I was trying to be to make a point. Duh.
I never “defended” the Oscar institution, I just reacted (in accordance to what I was told and what I saw on an e mail) to the holier than thou attitude that some seem to espouse.
“I never “defended” the Oscar institution, I just reacted (in accordance to what I was told and what I saw on an e mail) to the holier than thou attitude that some seem to espouse.”
But the tone of each of your response leaves absolutely no room to question ANYTHING about the Oscars or their selections. If that isn’t championing them or institutions like them I don’t know what is. Anything I say (or others with my perspective) you’ll just write off with (the ultra dismissive and arrogant) “Get over yourself buddy. The world doesn’t revolve around you”, and claim I’m putting myself over all else (when in reality I’m putting THE FORM over all else– here specifically over the Oscar).
When is the little Golden Oscar Man going to be asked to get over himself?
“When is the little Golden Oscar Man going to be asked to get over himself?”
I don’t know, maybe when you get over YOURself. So now I’m a “little Golden Oscar Man?” Really? I haven’t watched a single show since maybe the early 90’s. I don’t even attend Sam’s parties, which I know he invests a lot of time and money into.
I made a general statement, and you took it personally, attempting to distort the original argument with semantics, and stating the obvious. I don’t need you to tell me what the problems are with Oscar. And I don’t need you to tellme that a film you dislike is a bad film, no matter what anyone else says.
No, you aren’t the little Golden Oscar Man. the actual Oscar statue is what I was referring to. Humanizing the pompous institution was my point, no need to have your blood pressure rise.
Jamie and Sam, I’m sorry if I made the temperature rise. I knows it’s cold out there, but nothing I said should be taken as personal. I’ve always appreciated Jamie’s reviews.
You realize this was all a ploy for some more screeners!
hint, hint.
Right Peter, I’m going after the Academy no one here. Nothing personal.
Peter, you are forgiven. I’m sure Jamie bears no ill will either.
I’ll see what I can do on that other front.
I got got “Life With the Rileys” with James Gndolphini from Broadway Bob.
“…I’m sure Jamie bears no ill will either”
speak for yourself Sam, I’m pissed.
Of course I’m joking, lol. It’s all good, and it always was.
Oh boy. Looks like I missed quite a spirited discussion. I am expecting that we will look back at all this with a smile.
Geez.
I must confess to only watching one Oscar show my whole life. In 2007/08 I did sit down and view some of that program due to the inclusion of There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men (though the exclusion of Zodiac, Eastern Promises, and Assassination Of Jesse James were somewhat puzzling to me). I skipped the whole red carpet nonsense and also large segments of the actual ceremony. It still seems weird to judge art like a baseball game and have one winner that no one could ever agree on. I guess maybe it should all just be taken in good fun and those of us who vehemently blast the show should get a life lol. Maybe I”ll watch this year just for the hell of it and not give a hoot to who actually wins. I guess the spectacle is what most really come to see anyway.
At least the music lovers around here can rejoice in this fact: as flaccid as the Oscars are, they’ll never be as bad as the Grammy’s.
Excellent point there Jamie.
I’d say the Tonys are the best.
Then the Oscars.
Then the Grammys and Emmys.
Then the wine and dine Globes dead last.
Haha the Grammy’s are absolutely clueless. Jethro Tull is heavy metal to nobody else but the six old guys that preside over those award shows. I think I read somewhere once that in 66 or 67 The Beatles and Bob Dylan lost to Captain and Tennille for best record. The problem with the Grammy’s is that they are objectively idiotic. They don’t seem to know what style/genre of music artist’s belong in and give best new artist awards to people with 2 or 3 albums already under their belt. Sort of like if the Oscar’s giving Slumdog Millionaire best documentary or animated short. The Grammy’s are run by people that clearly know nothing about music. That is almost certainly an objective statement…
Ah Jethro Tull.
Now you are really talking my language.
Aqualung (Locomotive Breath, Wind-Up, Wondering Aloud, Aqualung, My God, Cross-Eyed Mary)
Thick as a Brick
Benefit
A Passion Play
Livin in the Past
War Child
Minstrel in the Gallery
I am assuming both you and Jamie are big fans, no?
Actually Sam I am not a big fan of Tull. Flutes are not my thing though they were used well enough in the first King Crimson album and Bryter Lyter by Nick Drake. I don’t dislike Jethro but can’t say I follow them.
I love the flutes, but I know they aren’t everybody’s cup of tea. I saw them in concert twice, which was more than any other group aside from The Who on three occasions. I think Jamie or someone else here saw The Whou FOUR times!!!
Yeah, I’ve seen the Who 4 times (and could have seen them more but I’ve decided they aren’t really necessary to see them any more), now I’d only see Townshend solo.
I loved Jethro Tull up until about age 20 +/-, I suppose I don’t dislike them but I’m just not a huge fan now (I sold all my records of them except ‘Think As A Brick’ which I think is a pretty cool concept long player).
Head over from brooklyn Jamie. We’ll make it worth your while!!!!
Ha!!!!!
I mean Maurizio, not Jamie.
Jamie lives in Chicago, though he’s still welcome to fly in!!!!
Maybe I will Sam. Who else from WITD usually attends…
I’ll teleconference.
Dennis, Frank Gallo, Andrei Scala, Jason Giampietro, Marc Bauer……sometimes David Noack and Maria Apone.
I’d LOVE to have you there, and it can be arranged easy enough!!!
That would be great too Jamie!
Wow Sam a who’s who of WITD east coast regulars. No Bob Clark??
Maurizio: Bob Clark does all he can to stay incognito, though I often speak to him directly by instant e mail. I may well see him at the Lang Festival though.
Wouldn’t a Lang festival be the best place of all to remain incognito?
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend this years Oscar bash as I will be working the night shift.
In years past, though, the party has been a rousing success with good food, conversation, a little drunkenness, alot of laughs and, per usual, Sam’s violent and profane outbursts when his favorites don’t win. I implore all that have never attended one of these bashes to come as this year Sam will be modeling, in person, the five best gowns worn by the nominees for BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS and, will do his impersonation of Donald Duck when the winner of BEST ANIMATION feature is announced.
In years past, the party has included Sam smashing dishes, trying to hang himself in the main-floor bathroom with the snow shovels and driving the car through the living room window and into the television screen.
For entertainment purposes only, those in attendance are crossing their fingers that COLIN FIRTH loses the BEST ACTOR prize for THE KINGS SPEECH as it has been assessed that Sam will then perform HARA KIRI on the sofa bed in the basement and over one of Lucille’s wooden spoons that she stirs the meatball pot with.
After his suicide, Lucille will be serving dessert (featuring Tiramisu) in the kitchen…
🙂
How was anything besides King’s Speech the “Oscar film?” It’s obviously the sort of film the Academy has traditionally preferred to honor, though admittedly there hasn’t been such a flaming temptation thrown at them since 1998. By comparison, Social Network is contemporary and controversial, while True Grit is a genre film and a remake. I haven’t seen the front-runner yet, but I feel like I’ve already seen it, back when it was set in the 18th century. It was a fine film then, and I don’t doubt that the new version is well made, but Speech seems so designed to win awards that I can’t help feeling a little averse.
In any event, my hunch at first glance is that Social Network might sneak in as the Speech impulse and the late surge for Grit cancel each other out. Given the field, and with the caveat that I’ve also missed Winter’s Bone, that result would come the closest to justice.
Carlos is still the best film of 2010.
What can I say Samuel?
This is an utterly brilliant response.
This is precisely what I was contending the other day in a heated e mail exchange with my e mail network. When it was “suggested” that THE SOCIAL NETWORK was an “Oscar film” I went berzerk. That film is the antithesis of Oscar, and anyone who makes that contention is doing so only because they will need an excuse if it happens to win (which it still probably will). As you rightly contend it is audacious, ‘contemporary’ and ‘controversial’, while THE KING’S SPEECH is typically Oscar-friendly. Mind you, THE KING’S SPEECH is an exceedingly popular and beautifully-crafted work that is entertaining and moving, and it boasts some of the best reviews of the year. It’s one of my own Ten Best of the year. I even predict Allan will rate it highly for various reasons, even though he generally scoffs as ‘formulaic’ works.
Your cancelling out scenario is one I also brought to the fore in school today with my combative friend Peter M., proposing that probability. The only way that may not happen is if TRUE GRIT loses steam, especially with those who may feel that the Cohens have earned their due in recent years. I see a VERY close race between THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KING’S SPEECH, with the former winning by a hair (as you opine as well.)
As CARLOS is in my Top 3, I can’t argue with you at all, and I would love to get your eventual response to the very good WINTER’S BONE.
You flatter me, Sam. I’m sure I’ll see Speech eventually but right now I’m pressed to figure out what’s novel about it. I don’t see Grit losing steam given its now-proven popularity. It reminds me of how Million Dollar Baby got rushed into theaters at the end of the 2004 season and built up snowball momentum thereafter, except that this year Speech is a more formidable impediment to the snowball, while Social Network has had momentum all along. The worst case, I suppose, is if three films can cancel one another out in a larger field and clear the path for godhelpus Black Swan!
Aye Samuel. You are right what you say about TRUE GRIT staying the course now; I just don’t think the voters will go with the Coens a second time in four years. Getting in the final 5 (or 10, ha!) is one thing, but prevailing in the second vote (where balloters pick one) is another matter. The sneal in as you say there can definitely happen even with TOY STORY 3 if the votes are severely split in a number of directions! As far as THE KING’S SPEECH, I’ll agree there’s nothing novel, but it manages to get by that with exceedingly craftsmanship and class entertainment. Those qualities mean more to some and less to others I know, but I am always a sucker for Beethoven’s Seventh and Britain during World War 2.
Hey Sam, I know you can take it, so we need go no further than your self for contradictions: ***½ for the formulaic The Company Men and **½ for the audacious Black Swan.
Aye Tony, absolutely. I’ll readily admit that my ratings and regard for films are not always consistent with what I make claim to valuing most in films. But I can listen and will still do so on BLACK SWAN, which is the work of a director I have very high regard for. I will watch it again at some point in the near future. As to THE COMPANY MEN, I can’t explain it. I went in there expecting and wanting to hate the film (Ben Affleck has become my punching bag as of late) but I saw some worth in the general theme, knowing and feeling what I do about the economy. On the other hand I was bored with Weir’s THE WAY HOME, even though I went in expecting to love it. Go figure.
Hope and anticipate all is well my very good friend.
Sam, I know I am the proverbial black pot, and I can’t claim immunity from contradictions, and it was not quite fair to single you out, but I do have some sympathy for the view that the Oscars and their like are a joke. The Oscars is about show-biz not cinema, best exemplified by the abomination that is the the awards ceremony.
Cinema awards should honor the cinematic, not sentiment nor the topical, nor the popular. I know I am on shaky ground here, and let me forestall my critics by admitting I can intensely dislike a ‘cinematic’ film where my personal values are offended – I leave the pursuit of moral relativism to others.
The Company Men tackles the recession and middle-class unemployment in a fairly benign fashion – careful not to rock the boat too much and with a ghastly saccharine ending. But the real issue for me is that the film does not use the form with any originality or real intelligence.
On the other hand, Black Swan explores the limits of the form with courage and intelligence. While we can argue the psychology and the histrionics, we cannot dismiss the audacity and the marvelous use of the form to explore a disturbed psyche.
You know something Tony, I just now recalled that you DID see THE COMPANY MEN!!!!! And I just now realized that you didn’t care much for it. Shows you how air-headed I am too often. Anyway your objections are sound, and I could see that reaction to the film. I may feel that way on a second viewing in fact.
Anyway, this is the statement from you that I was hoping to get:
“On the other hand, Black Swan explores the limits of the form with courage and intelligence. While we can argue the psychology and the histrionics, we cannot dismiss the audacity and the marvelous use of the form to explore a disturbed psyche.”
I can’t expect better than that.
Tony though you don’t like or watch extreme films… BLACK SWAN is only ‘audacious’ to people who don’t like that genre, or watch many films of that ilk.
Still really surprised you liked it (at least a little from your short email account of your feelings), didn’t see that coming. My feelings are with Sam on BS, if perhaps even more towards the negative.
I’ll admit that Tony’s positive reaction to BLACK SWAN did surprise me quite a bit, but I know there are elements there he has embraced in the past. You must understand Jamie, that you and I and a few others are all alone with BLACK SWAN (not that this means anything) but I have read so many ultra-positive reviews that I am seriously questioning whether or not I have missed the boat with this one. The fact that this is the first time I have taken issue with Aronofsky has me thinking. Ha!
Jon and Marilyn were the first two opinions I heard on the film and both though it was pretty poor (Marilyn found it absurd to the point of giggling and Jon thought is was extremely flawed if I remember), so we aren’t in the minority you may think (not that this would even matter, I know a bad film when I see one).
I was mostly surprised as Tony judges films on moral grounds so often, and a key scene in BLACK SWAN played reprehensibly loose with the idea of date rape and date rape drugs (but hey, Arnofsky can always just give himself the out of ‘It didn’t really happen!’, which is just gross). Thinking of IRREVERSIBLE, a film that does have a rape but is actually incredibly moralistic that gets bombarded by many that in turn like BLACK SWAN makes me shake my head and then laugh. What can you do. (another person who didn’t like BLACK SWAN? A girl I saw it with that was the target of an actual situation I speak of)
Well, it’s clear that Tony’s assertions here are steeped in the overriding artistry of the film.
I do agree with you though Jamie, that Aronofsky can easily enough question what is tangible and what’s not. This is a fine line that can’t be explained off.
But again, even if it didn’t happen the ‘idea’ that it did and that in Portman’s mind it happened, and she willfully desired it to happen (remember she readily drank a drink that was spiked) is just gross. it plays loose with ethics.
Oddly Jamie, I did not see the spiked drink the way you do. If I recall correctly, Nina ‘chose’ the spike after some protesting – and only after she got yet another phone call from her ‘prison guard’. A choice between letting go and allowing herself to be pulled back into a psychic straight-jacket.
We should never be surprised about what movies certain people like. This weekend I went to visit my parents and there were a pile of Blockbuster DVDs on top of a coffee table. My parents and little sister are not film connoisseurs by any stretch and I was surprised to see The White Ribbon mixed in with more obvious stuff. When I asked my mother if she liked the picture (expecting a negative response) she expressed joy at what she thought was a great movie. She even mentioned some of the allegorical connections to the Nazi’s rise of power which did indeed surprise me. I guess the moral of the story is never pigeonhole people. I learned my lesson…..
“Oddly Jamie, I did not see the spiked drink the way you do. If I recall correctly, Nina ‘chose’ the spike after some protesting – and only after she got yet another phone call from her ‘prison guard’. A choice between letting go and allowing herself to be pulled back into a psychic straight-jacket.”
Hmmm. I’m going to have to return to that specific scene which I can now thankfully do (thanks Sam, wink). But just for the sake of argument you are correct, I still think that represents a rather misogynistic choice from the Director (and besides it’s always better to harm your oppressor–the ‘warden’ as you say– then to willfully be harmed). The fact that the ‘personal harm’ is almost certain to be sexual assault is reprehensible. Arnofsky (sp?) hasn’t presented the choice in a way to be symbolic, rather it’s date rape victim as the one to be faulted.
Again though, I want to watch it again. I recall a few cuts and POV shots of Portman coming around a corner and completely realizing what was happening, then still going through with it that really grossed me out. Coming from me, someone who is willing to dissect this type of stuff makes me think it was extra predatory.
Ranking the best picture nominees……
1. True Grit *****
2. Winter’s Bone ****1/2
3. Black Swan **** or ****1/2 (I go back and forth)
4. The Kings Speech ****
5. 127 Hours ***1/2
6. Inception ***1/2
7. The Social Network ***1/2
8. The Fighter ***
9. Toy Story 3 ***
10. The Kids Are Alright ***
Great, great ratings there Maurizio.
I’ll try mine now.
True Grit **** 1/2
Winter’s Bone **** 1/2
Toy Story 3 *****
The Kids are All Right **** 1/2
Inception *** 1/2
The Fighter ** 1/2
The Social Network ****
The King’s Speech *****
Black Swan ** 1/2
127 Hours *** 1/2
Any film that gets less than four stars is a feature I will never watch again. Similar to Jamie I feel that 6 best picture nominations are not great films and actually rather average (though I don’t consider any of them to be bad).
That’s a good policy Maurizio, as time is valuable!
ew, I don’t know about that… plenty of stuff needs to get rewatched even if it isn’t a **** or above (not that I rate films in that manner).
Of the top of my head one reason would be when I’m reassessing or recontemplating a Director’s oeuvre. Currently I’m doing that with Fassbinder (what luck that Bob’s piece shows up last night!), who is one of my top 5 directors of all time… he made so many films of which I have about 25 or them, they all aren’t masterpieces or great but they are all valuable and should be watched many times to fully understand his genius. That’s just one example, another are films that give me a boost… I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched the films of Stuart Gordon, and most of them are utter shit.
WHAT IS AN “OSCAR” MOVIE???
Well, Sasha Stone at AWARDS DAILY sized it up today beautifully:
It’s been a while since we could say there was an “Oscar movie,” but that old trope roared to life today, as did the Oscar Whisperer, Harvey Weinstein’s dominance with the AMPAS. Longtime readers will recall that we always had a saying around here, “never underestimate the power of Harvey Weinstein.” I think we can bring that back today.
What is an “Oscar movie”? Well, it’s what various Oscar pundits were banking on when they saw The King’s Speech in Toronto: it hit every note for Oscar — a period film, a bravura leading male performance by a beloved actor, a story that makes you care about the characters, and even a little Holocaust/World War II thrown in for good measure.
And “Oscar movie” is also one that does well at the box office, but not too well. It does well with the critics but not too well. It usually bespeaks the better qualities of human beings, our higher selves, our ideal selves. It helps us out when times are tough by giving us a little tiny bit of hope in an otherwise cruel and cynical world. An “Oscar movie” is the stuff of legends.
Unfortunately, I think that argument is undercut by the fact people make “Oscar movies.” The King’s Speech is one such creature. If the Oscars were really about discovering quality wherever it might be, it would be practically impossible to make Oscar bait films. Which are made with boring constancy.
Who said the Oscars were ever about ‘discovering quality” in the general sense you are suggesting here? They are aimed at rewarding quality films, something they do maybe 50% of the time. THE KING’S SPEECH may be an “Oscar” film, but it’s also a “critic’s film” Overwhelming numbers can be easily seen at RT and MC (at RT it’s a staggering 96%) meaning peopel do LIKE this film a lot. And what’s not to like: great acting (Firth and Rush particularly) solid writing, great set design and costumes, and a lovely score by Alexandre Desplat, who makes very good use of Beethoven’s Seventh. And an inspiring story to boot. I love my indes quite a bit too, but classy entertainment is very much a part of this mix too.
Thanks for stopping by and entering the comment. Much appreciated.
For once, I thought all the film nominees were quite predictable. Usually, there is always one film that is a toss up but maybe I am thinking of pre-2010 days when the field was restricted to just 5 films. Not sure if the continued 10 film list will ensure that the room for some surprizes in the future goes down?
Usually, I am always behind on the documentaries but this year for a change I have seen 4 out of the 5 documentary nominees. Interestingly, the five 5 docs can also be conveniently be described by one word, even though this does not do justice to the films:
art, gas, money, war and garbage.
The words are simple to remember and relate to our daily lives. Art nourishes the soul, gas is essential for day to day existence and transportation, money makes the world go around and garbage/waste is a byproduct of human life. As for war, it somehow will always be a part of civilizations. Now that I think about it, maybe all 5 combined docs should get one award 🙂
Trying to narrow the 10 films down to one word, just for fun:
Guns, Family, Toys, Kids, Dreams, Boxing (or drugs), Internet, Communication (or radio), Ballet, Adventure
“Interestingly, the five 5 docs can also be conveniently be described by one word, even though this does not do justice to the films:
art, gas, money, war and garbage.”
That is a terrific delineation there Sachin, as is the later one where you describe each nominee with one word! Well, I was thinking that maybe INCEPTION was a bit of a surprise, though the lineup did turn out to be most predictable. That’s amazing that you saw four of the five documentaries!!! You are a real trooper! I am pulling myself for WASTELAND to win, though INSIDE JOB would be a great choice as well.
Say what you want, but I happen to find the Oscars fun. It’s a thrill to get a whole bunch of people together and use the ceremony as a start off point to seque into discussions about really great movies (and I don’t mean most that were nominated). In the end, they really mean nothing and we all keep out opinions and our favors.
As for the nominations?
The only thing I really must cry foul on here is the omission of Ryan Gosling in the category of BEST ACTOR. The neglect to nominate this man is a crime. Considering that Michelle Williams was nominated for her turn in BLUE VALENTINE it boggles my mind that Gosling didn’t as her performance in the film is purely one of reaction to Gosling.
I saw BLUE VALENTINE just this past Thursday and I must say that the film was a moving experience and Gosling never stepped wrong in his portrayal of a man whose personal interests poison a deeply passionate relationship. As I recall, I leaned over to Sam (who was also in attendance that night) and commented that we’ll be seeing and hearing more from this wonderful actor in the future and that if there was any justice with the Oscars, Gosling would not only nominate but win the prize in a landslide. Like his nominated turn for HALF NELSON, Gosling has a keen eye for observation and renders his performances with a kind of intinctual truth so few these days even care to try. As for BLUE VALENTINE, anyone that has ever been in a relationship that is turning sour will recognize all of the things said and done between Dean (Gosling) and Cindy (Williams). It’s a film that cuts the audience to the gut and reveals itself as a truthful look at the downfall of a relationship when hast plays a key factor in its inception. The director, ping-pongs the narrative between the first few weeks of the relationship with its final days and effortlessly illustrates what happens when one in a relationship becomes consumed in his/her own personal interests and turns a deaf ear to the other halfs needs. Frankly, I was flabbergasted by the sincerity of the film as well as it’s starkly simply visual dichotomy which made me squeem in an almost embarrassed nature as the conversations, actions and arguments were like eavesdropping on a next door neighbor.
I don’t get too impressed by much in film these days but BLUE VALENTINE struck such a huge chord of truth in me as to drop my jaw with it’s sincerity and honest approach.
Gosling, simply, was robbed of the nomination.
Dennis, as Pierre rightly asserts below, you make an excellent point with Gosling’s omission, which from what I’ve heard was perpetrated by Julia Roberts. It appears that the actress was aggressively campaigning for Javier Bardem, who landed a nod for BIUTIFUL. Bardem has received raves for his performance (I haven’t seen it yet to be honest) but few were expecting him to get into the elite five. For me Gosling rates with Colin Firth and Edgar Ramirez among the year’s most impressive turns by a lead actor. But we know well why Ramirez wouldn’t make it. Eisenberg was very good as well, and his nomination was a foregone conclusion.
I agree with you that watching the Oscars can be a lot of fun, providing you don’t take it too seriously. When CRASH beat out BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (after Ang Lee had won the Best Director prize) I was so angry that I virtually ignored the build up to the following year’s show, and wrote a scathing letter to an online supporter of CRASH (who was glosting).
Fantastic discussion of BLLUE VALENTINE, Dennis!
This is why I’ll shoot hole in everyone’s theory that Natalie Portman is the shoo-in to land the BEST ACTRESS prize. As seen by the strength of Julia Roberts (pushing for Javier Bardem), its a foregone conclusion that Warren Beatty and his buddies (Jack is one of them and one of the biggest Oscar loves of them all) will push just as hard, maybe even harder, to procure Beatty’s wife, three time loser, Annette Bening into the winners circle for THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT.
Also take into consideration that Miss Bening is playing a gay character (something that is looked upon favorably by the Academy when it involves a mainstream, big name actor/actress-Remember Tom Hanks in PHILADELPHIA, William Hurt in KISS OF THE SPIDER WOMAN, Hilary Swank in BOYS DONT CRY and Phillip Seymore Hoffman in CAPOTE????) and that she HAS BEEN NOMINATED and LOST 3 TIMES PRIOR.
You people think that she is only second or third string here. I for one think she’s gonna nail this and run for the goal. I predict Bening in the final heat.
Portman, on the other hand, is too young, has a whole career ahead of her and, now, one of the most popular and sought after young actresses working in Hollywood today (she’s got a big “crowd pleaser” romantic comedy with Ashton Kutcher opening next week and a screwball “mel-brooks-esque” comedy coming up before the end of the month). Money and more parts will be her reward me thinks.
I’ll bet the farm on the following:
PICTURE: THE SOCIAL NETWORK
DIRECTOR: David Fincher-THE SOCIAL NETWORK
SCREENPLAY ADAPTED: Aaron Sorkin-THE SOCIAL NETWORK
SCREENPLAY ORIGINAL: David Seidler-THE KINGS SPEECH
ACTOR (LEAD): Colin Firth-THE KINGS SPEECH
ACTRESS (LEAD): Annette Bening-THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
ACTOR (Supporting): Cristian Bale-THE FIGHTER
ACTRESS (Supporting): Halee Steinfeld-TRUE GRIT
EDITING: THE SOCIAL NETWORK
ALSO: The CRASH debacle wasn’t your most infamous outburst…
If we remember correctly…
Lucille had to practically body slam you to the floor to keep you from kicking in the television screen the night they announced Nicole Kidman the winner of BEST ACTRESS for her turn in THE HOURS over your beloved Julianne Moore for FAR FROM HEAVEN. You ranted and knocked over book-cases, kicked chairs and threatened to kill everyoone in the house for the Oscar party with an automatic machine-gun (you even were considering stealing little Jeremy for a week to accompany you on a car journey to Hollywood to help miss Moore through her depression). If you recall, you adjourneed to the bed-room and locked the door and cursed anyone who knocked to see if you were OK. What I remember most distictly of that night, was you laying on the bed muttering “FOUL” and “JULIANNE” for hours before the psychiatrist came to the house to speak with you (“remember Sam, it’s just a television show-can you say TEL-A-VISION SHOOOOOOOW?”) and sedated you with enough morphine to kill a small rhinoceros…
Your recovery from that night, I must say, is almost complete and I noticed that you no longer walk around with the lobster bib around your neck…
🙂 🙂 🙂
“As seen by the strength of Julia Roberts (pushing for Javier Bardem), its a foregone conclusion that Warren Beatty and his buddies (Jack is one of them and one of the biggest Oscar loves of them all) will push just as hard, maybe even harder, to procure Beatty’s wife, three time loser, Annette Bening into the winners circle for THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT.”
I disagree on that one, Dennis. To me your case is apples and oranges. Roberts was advocating for what reportedly is a tour de force performance by an Oscar-winning actor in a little-seen film in a foreign language. She was advocating as an appeal to artistic justice. Any appeals on Bening’s behalf would probably be viewed as more political, and — assuming that Beatty and Nicholson would lobby hard on her behalf, a notion I don’t buy — being arguably “overdue” in a performance that’s anything but a tour de force is scarcely enough justification to award an Oscar while all Roberts did was help Bardem get nominated.
I agree with Pierre here completely. It is indeed apples and oranges, as I’ve conveyed to Dennis by e mail. I do believe Bening’s performance is close to a “tour de force” (the New York Film Critics Circle thought enough of it to call it the best performance by an actress this year) but it won’t be enough to stop Natalie Portman from claiming teh prize. besides, I think Beatty and Nicholson have far less clout than they did years ago, and I seriously debate how far they are going with this anyway.
Yep, Dennis, Moore’s loss did devastate me. The euphoria I felt back in 1969 (when I was only 15 years old) as Maggie Smith came up to the podium to claim her Oscar for THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE in Oscar’s greatest moment in honoring the performance that deserved to win, even eluding the critics that year, was brought down to the depths of despair, when Kidman won for her barely qualifying role in a film I still loved (THE HOURS). Julianne Moore was the best actress of 2002 for FAR FROM HEAVEN (my film of the decade) and her loss did upset me for months, even as I tell the world how meaningless the Oscars are.
I am full of shit.
Dennis, I agree wholeheartedly about the quality of Gosling’s excellent performance. Going further, the fact of his omission by the Academy serves as an example of what you also touch upon regarding the Oscars in general (the “fun” aspect and opportunity to discuss film).
On the surface, one might suggest that Gosling didn’t get nominated, as opposed to Williams having been acknowledged in her category, because of relatively stiffer competition among potential nominees who are male. This may be arguably true. What’s additionally relevant, I believe, involves the nature of the Oscars as a longtime institution. Simply put, my view is that Gosling wasn’t acknowledged by AMPAS because 1) the nature of his character isn’t “Oscar friendly” enough and 2) he didn’t campaign as much as Williams did. Generally speaking, dramatic characters typically go through an arc and thus change somehow to reflect some kind of point or theme. If Rosling’s character does this, it’s probably a slight downward tilt, whereas the Williams character experiences a more noticeable upward change as she realizes the destructive effects of the relationship on her personal and professional growth.
The Academy is unique in that it bestows its awards in so many categories and has been doing so for a longer time than any other film institution. I think it’s safe to say that the Academy’s choices are culturally prescriptive. In other words, they seem to reward examples of characters as a way of saying what’s “good.” This is why “good” characters often win, or characters who start out “bad” and go through stuff that makes them “good” (e.g., redemption, successful struggles with adversity including overcoming victimization or self-destructive qualities). Granted, there are occasions when a “bad” character wins (off the top of my head, Christophe Waltz, Daniel Day Lewis, and Louise Fletcher come to mind), but these are usually considered tour de force roles that can be tolerated as a negative example to the audience.
Unlike critics groups, AMPAS places itself in a position to make judgments in individual areas (acting, technical crafts, writing, etc.), as well as general (film and honorary recognition). This structure over time has evolved into an opportunity for the Academy to issue collective statements on values and culture to a greater extent than any individual critic or body of critics could do.
Getting back to the Gosling example, I believe he would’ve had a better chance of an Oscar nomination had his character been written differently: If he had been “badder” (more self-destructive or more obviously hurtful) would’ve helped. Another way would’ve been if his character had gone through a moment of realization at the end that his “badness” had brought about the breakup. The best example I can come up with at the moment (though it’s not an Oscar-nominated performance) occurs in La Strada, when Anthony Quinn, after a climactic rampage, “sees the light” while waves lap at his head on an Italian beach.
Looking at the field of best actor contenders this year, one may be hard put to swap out one of the nominated actors in order to include Gosling. It would be pure subjectivity to eliminate any of them, in my view, in favor of Gosling. The factors that resulted in his exclusion involve additional criteria that AMPAS voters seem to employ — and that has to do with nature of character as well as nature of the film and its overall prominence, including general popular appeal, relative to other films in contention.
“On the surface, one might suggest that Gosling didn’t get nominated, as opposed to Williams having been acknowledged in her category, because of relatively stiffer competition among potential nominees who are male. This may be arguably true.”
Pierre, as always you map out your response and present it most persuasively. Well, I am going to argue the ‘male category is stronger’ as the one this year that doomed Gosling, and not the down-beat nature of the performance. Nicholas Cage and Anthony Hopkins and Javier Bardem (NO COUNTRY) have won for playing unsympathetic, downright despicable characters, even though Hopkins’s charisma has people pulling for him anyway. (but I see you brought up Fletcher, Lewis, and Waltz to the discussion). I would venture to believe that Gosling came in 6th place, and in all probability narrowly behind Bardem, who I see as the 5th place finisher. Williams had an easy way to the Final Five, as at least in the short term the men were more competitive in the lead category. Had Giovanna Mezzogiorno, Tilda Swinton or Isabelle Huppert been considered for their turns in VINCERE, I AM LOVE or WHITE MATERIAL, then Williams wouldn’t have made it. As I’ve stated on other threads I felt that Ms. Mezzogiorno, who played in Bellochio’s Italian-language period film as Mussolini’s mistress, was the standout female this year, and it’s too bad the Academy continues to balk at broadening their horizons. In any case, I will agree with you Pierre, that the depressing character didn’t win Gosling any extra consideration. Had he been one to rally around, perhaps even Roberts’ campaign for Bardem would have failed.
Your final contention is sound too. It would no doubt be enormously difficult to swap Firth, Eisenberg, Franco, Bridges or Bardem. Oddly enough though if I absolutely HAD to, I would remove Bridges, who just won last year, and basically played his usual shtick (though exceedingly well done of course). Hattie Seinfeld is the REAL acting star of that film I way I see it. I can’t yet make a judgement on Bardem, though I hop to see the film this week.
Your contribution here is absolutely extraordinary my friend!
Though true, it’s a crock.
Just because an actor is playing “bad” doesn’t mean he’s any less brilliant than those that play “heroic” “saintly” “nice” or “martyr”.
It’s often been said by many a thespian that playing a “black” or “dark” character is far more challenging and way more fun than playing the opposite. They relish in the overabundance of creativity and ingenuity that is offered a character that has one foot in hell. In the case of Daniel Day-Lewis, it offered him more range and a bigger field for him to go hog wild and both his villianous turns (in GANGS OF NEW YORK and THERE WILL BE BLOOD) payed off with numerous accolades, critics prizes and, with BLOOD, the Oscar (he also has the destinction, with BLOOD, of giving the world the finest performance of the decade dated 2000 to 2009).
The fact remains that two of the nominees in this race really didn’t deserve the nomination at all and it’s a travesty for anyone who sees as many films as we do to think the Academy is all about soft fuzzy and warm performances than the ones that allow the range of the actor/actress to flow in a meaningful way. Ryan Gosling gave, hands down, one of the two or three best turns of the year. Where I will applaud him, along with his performance, is his lack of care as to whether he garnered the nod and his focus, as an artist, on where his next performance will be coming from. He is an electric presence on screen (both HALF NELSON and BLUE VALENTINE prove this) and an actor to be watched for in the future.
As for Louise Fletcher, her turn in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST is a perfectly timed and nuanced piece of smoldering evil and you have to not just give her kudos for taking the part and turning it into her own… You have to admire that she was brave enough to agree to hold the screen with Jack Nicholson, an actor who was erupting (like Gosling is now) into one of the most amazing actors and screen presences that film has ever known (up there with Brando, Olivier, Cagney, Von Sydow, Mastrioanni, Tracy, Stewart, March, Chaplin, to name a few. Clearly he is an inspiration and a role model for the likes of Gosling, Day-Lewis DeCaprio and Penn.). CUCKOO’S NEST, to this day, still remains Nicholson’s tour-de-force and the fact that Fletcher was able to shine just as bright as he is no small acknowledgement to the talent she has brought to her craft and the character at hand. The only pity about Louise is two-fold: 1) she played her part so well she was never seen as being right for anything other than villians. 2) her age and her hard looks go against the mainstream when it comes to casting “leading ladies”.
“Well, I am going to argue the ‘male category is stronger’ as the one this year that doomed Gosling, and not the down-beat nature of the performance.”
To be clear, Sam, I think Gosling would’ve had a better chance of landing in the top 5 if his character had travelled a different arc — if he had become more “good” at the end or if he had been more “bad.” But that’s not the film.
As long as we’re talking about male performances, I truly enjoyed J Phoenix — with the exception of maybe a scene or two I’d cut out — in I’m Still Here.
I wish I could be more enthusiastic about Vincere. I thought it was good but for some reason it didn’t grab me as much as it obviously did you.
Dennis: I can’t argue with you, as the position you broach here is one I traditionally support. Javier Bardem played the most evil Academy Award winner in history (arguably Anthony Hopkins matches him, but we all grow of course to love Hannibal the Cannibal) and voters rallied behind his performance in a big way. I think what Pierre is saying here (and I agree with him) is that Gosling came very very close to a nomination, which might have happened if a few voters came in on a feel-good premise. This argument has nothing to do with teh general perception of a down er role, as you’ve illustrated yourself with irrefutable examples.
Pierre: Would you believe I still haven’t seen I’M STILL HERE yet, though I owe it to Craig Kennedy (it’s his #2 of teh year) to see it. I know Jason Giampietro hates teh film, as do a sizable number of the critics, but there are fervant fans too. Are there any other WitD readers who can share their opinion on it? But anyway, I concur with what you say about BLUE VALENTINE basically being what it is.
I’d have done away with Bridges and Franco in the long run and left two slots open for others. In this case one of the slots would have been reserved for the extraordinary RYAN GOSLING who gave, for me, the most real performance I have seen in a very long time. Frankly, and Sam will attest to this as he witnessed it, Goslings performance left me walking out of the screening room with my jaw hanging on the floor.
“Goslings performance left me walking out of the screening room with my jaw hanging on the floor.”
He is quite amazing, and the best part is that he’s young with plenty of time to mature. I’m just guessing, but I bet the cigarette thing he did during the “present” sequences was his idea.
Pierre: From what I came across, Gosling is a smoker, so what he did here was in keeping with his normal behavior, though I would imagine in real life he smokes considerably less. Ha!
I’ll have more thoughts when I write up my yearly Oscar column in a few weeks, but I’ll stick to these brief observations:
1) My Oscar motto this year is taken from the NBC comedy Parks and Recreation. The deadpan department director says of awards, “I still think awards are stupid, but they’d be less stupid if they went to the right people.”
2) I think it’s important to grade Oscar nominations on a curve, as the Oscars routinely pass over the best in film because they don’t see them or disqualify them under shockingly stupid rules, and those are facts that will never change. I’m perpetually sad that many great films get stuck in their respective “ghetto” categories and the nominations don’t stretch into other realms. (Am I right that no documentary has ever earned a Best Picture nomination?) That said, I was surprised how much I wasn’t aghast by this list of nominees. Perhaps it’s because I’ve been following the awards season and expected most of the nominees, but at least there wasn’t a Blind Side-ish fiasco. Many deserving nominees missed out, which is always a shame, but in terms of recognizing mainstream U.S. achievements, this year’s slate could have been much worse.
3) Strangely enough, however, although I don’t find the nominees out-and-out objectionable, I suspect this year there will be a greater discrepancy between my vote (should win) and my actual prediction (will win). I only spot a few categories where the category favorite is also the person I’d vote for.
4) Because I enjoyed both The Social Network and The King’s Speech (and possible spoiler True Grit), I find myself a little more pleased than the Film A v. Film B battles of last year (The Hurt Locker, which I liked, and Avatar, which I didn’t) or the year before (Milk, which I liked, and Slumdog Millionaire, which I didn’t), or really of almost all the Oscar contests 2000 and onward. That’s an eerie position to be in.
Always an astute and superbly reasoned response T.S., and I much appreciate having you over here. That’s a telling qualification you pose at the outset from “Parks and Recreation.” Ha! How true! And I do buy that “curve” specification, as I’ve though as much without actually using that exact word. In covering mainstream American fare, the Oscar nominations are rarely intolerable. And there’s always a sprinkling of inde and foreigns that are championed by some of the cinematically hip Oscar fraternity, like Julia Roberts who this year (supposedly) nailed teh nomination for Javier Bardem. That ‘ghettoization” of certain films (Pixar is a perfect example) is a big turn-off as are those arcane rules. But as you say, why complain? It’s not likely to be reformed. You are correct on your speculation about no documentary ever getting nominated for Best Picture. And of course we both know that until the ten nominations were reintroduced last year (this idea isn’t really working, but I’ll save that) only BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (1991) was nominated among animated features.
Most interesting that there is a wide disparity between what you predict and what you favor this year. The early predictions are now seeminly giving The King’s Speech a narrow edge over The Social Network. It will be interesting to see if this holds up, or if it was a flash in the pants after the PGA win and the leading 12 nominations.
I’d love to be privy to your firmed up predictions my very good friend!
Funny though, SAM, if the Academy went back to 5 nominations I would have still pushed for TOY STORY 3, this years most emotional and touching film, for one of the nominations for BEST PICTURE.
The facts remain that, aside from a few of the Foreign films that you have mentioned, TOY STORY 3 garnered almost perfect reviews down the line and it was a foregone conclusion that the PIXAR backed production was one of the 5 strongest American films contending for a nomination for the biggest prize of them all. Frankly, I like that the Academy is finally acknowledging the fact that animation is a viable medium and that it should not be pushed aside when considering the very best of the year. BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, it’s true, has the rare distinction of making the grade when 5 nominations was the norm but, you yourself know, that film WAS the best reviewed and critically lauded film of 1991. Had it been brushed to the side, the reviewers and critics would have asked for a lynching mob to string up the members that decide the nominations. Simply put, if it deserves the nomination, has the best critical reviews, then it MUST be nominated.
TOY STORY 3 fit that criteria the moment the critics started reviewing it.
It’s that simple.
Dennis: You won’t get an argument from me on either TOY STORY 3 and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST. Yes, I am with the 96 or 98% of the critics who like both, and while I respect those in the blogging fraternity who opt to ‘show the other side of the coin’ I I go with the ‘calling a spade a spade’ adage. If it’s a masterpiece, I’ll say it’s a masterpiece. Ha!
If the job of the Director is to visualise the script and organise the actors then I think Nolan did a reasonably bad job. I’d say his script / idea was a lot better. INCEPTION is an OK/Good film but visually it is quite uninteresting.
Was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon the last foreign film nominated for best film?
That’s more than a fair enough estimation of INCEPTION, Stephen! And yes, CROUCHING TIGER in 2001 is the last foreign language film to be nominated for Best Picture, although some purists condider Eastwood’s LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA to be foreign because much of the language spoken in the film is Japanese. I don’t buy that perceptive for obvious reasons though. Thanks as always for the great comment.
I’d love to know, and often pondered, how Eastwood knew if he was getting the best of his actors in LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA if he, himself, could not speak Japanese????
I’m with y’all on Gosling. Terrfic turn in “Blue Valentine”. One of the most nuanced portrayals of man-turned-beta (and its obvious pitfalls) in modern American family. Compared to Williams, Gosling’s part is much more prescient and astonishgly naturalistic.
P.S: Sheer blasphemy that he wasn’t even nominated for one of the performances of the decade in “The Believer” (far above Washington’s, Crowe’s and rest that year)
“Compared to Williams, Gosling’s part is much more prescient and astonishgly naturalistic.”
Indeed Duallist! The problem with me building up Gosling at teh expense of Williams if I will always get the argument that I am ignoring subtlety for “in your face” acting. Williams is a very good actress, but her laid back character allows her to do very little for her salary here. Gosling acts his heart out as his role demands, and he’s seen as no better than Williams. It’s unfair, but that’s the way it is.
Thanks so much for stopping by!
Sam, I finally got to see The Blue Valentine and agree with your and all the other comments about Gosling’s brilliant performance. I suppose I have to see Biutiful to fully know how badly the ommission truly was.
There was a time when there was an outrage in all the categories when a deserving film/person was not nominated. Now with 10 films being nominated, at least the focus will no longer center around a handful of films being left out. I can’t see a situation where there will always be 10 stellar films in a year so this number will ensure there aren’t too many unhappy people. But the director and acting categories will continue to provide enough friction.
The one category that begs an increase is the foreign film category not because of the number of countries involved but also the decision making that goes in each nation as to which film should be submitted. Sometimes a country does not submit their best film but submit the film they consider as having the best chance of a nomination. Ofcourse a lot of the nominated foreign films are not as widely seen or known as the American entries so that gives a few theatrically released foreign entries a good advantage. Although the winners in this category can still be a surprise like the Japanese film Departures a few years ago. Even last year I thought The White Ribbon and A Prophet were favourites and both were more widely seen than the Secret in their Eyes.
You got to see it Sachin?
Great news!!!
And just as great that you have some in with an ultra-favorable reaction. Thrilled to hear that you are on the Gosling bandwagon here. I feel that his great work was overshadowed by the efforts of his co-star largely because the comepetition was more acute among the leading men, and also as Pierre insightfully notes, Gosling role was exceedingly nihilistic. I am happy for Williams, don’t get me wrong, though it’s unfortunate that Mezzogiorno and Swinton were ignored as expected. The former got her due a few weeks ago of course from the National Society of Film Critics, but you must wonder if more than a handful of people ever got to see VINCERE.
That’s an excellent agrgument you make about 10 nominations preventing a disappointment. I know DREAMGIRLS fans would not have been saddened had the rule been in effect that year, when it’s obvious enough that the musical came in sixth place. It’s true too what you say about the “friction” still on the table with teh acting and directing categories.
Yes, the foreign film category does beg expansion for the reasons you note, and also because it gives more attention to films that have been sadly neglected by this largely pro-Hollywood conclave. It’s telling too when you consider the embarrassing fact that not since CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON in 2000, have the Academt members opted to name a foreign language film in the Best Picture category. This practice, ironically, was more regular in the early 70’s, when we had CRIES AND WHISPERS and THE EMIGRANTS up in the Big Show.
Many thanks for the superb comment my friend!
Yeah i was delighted to finally see it as well. It was unexpected as a single theater (that too in a multiplex) opened it last friday whereas all along a wider release was slated for Feb.
It is indeed a fine film with raw emotions. At times it did not feel like scripted cinema. The scenes in the hospital near the end were quite incredible. I kept thinking of Francois Ozon’s amazing film 5×2 while watching Blue Valentine although 5×2 shows the breakdown of a relationship in 5 clear stages starting backwards. Whereas, Blue Valentine splices the present and past together to highlight the vast gulf that is growing between the two.
Ah Sachin, I am sorry to say I haven’t seen 5 X 2, though ironically I am a bif fan of Ozon’s work. My favorite of his films is TIME TO LEAVE, which made my Top 10 of its release year mid-decade, and I have high regard too for SWIMMING POOL and CRMINAL LOVERS (the latter is quite a bizarre film I know!) and think well-emough of WATER DROPS ON BURNING ROCKS. But I’ll have to seek it out now. The purposeful immersion of past and present was indeed one of BLUE VALENTINE’s most compelling aspects, and it accentuated the theme quite effectively, as you suggest here. Cianfrance’s refusal to take sides of course (same with Mitchell in RABBIT HOLE) is another attribute.
Yeah, it came to our local commercial multiplex too (oddly) but I had first seen it in Manhattan on it’s opening weekend to report back here.
“I concur with what you say about BLUE VALENTINE basically being what it is”
Sam, I like to think of it as a “labor of love lost.”
Regarding Maggie Smith, as I remember it she lucked out by having familiarized her ample talents on the LA stage (the Ahmanson Theatre as I recall) running up to the voting. It helps to get your behind out there one way or the other.