Quantcast

Everything Old is New Again

Posted by Sasha Stone2 On February - 3 - 2009

HE points us to this interesting, well-written piece on Oscars 2008.  It’s a must-read:

Pity the film scholar who tries to discern something about our times from surveying this list of best picture nominees 10, or 30, or 50 years from now. The substance of popular movies is almost never coincident with the events on the front page, and it would be a huge mistake to try to sew these films together into an argument that they somehow represent an Obama-era paradigm shift. For one thing, the presence of the fifth (and most surprising) best picture nominee, The Reader, proves only that the appeal of Holocaust-themed dramas to a large bloc of Academy voters transcends time, space, politics and fashion. For another, it’s not in the nature of movies to reflect the times so quickly: it took 15 years of development and rewriting as well as the invention of new technologies to make Benjamin Button possible, and although Milk came together with remarkable speed and focus under its producers Bruce Cohen and Dan Jinks, the idea of making a biopic about Harvey Milk, who was killed in 1978, has been around for so long that at one point, Dustin Hoffman, now 71, was touted to play the role that eventually went to Sean Penn (who is 48).

I disagree with him about one thing, though.  While I agree that you can’t see these films as necessarily reflecting the Obama shift, you certainly can put the love of Slumdog squarely on the now.  And the reason is that I have never seen this kind of enthusiasm for a politician and for potential change.  I have never seen mass dancing in the streets when someone was elected.  I have never seen so many smiles.  While it is true that “they” didn’t seem to consider the economy at all when they made their choices (how many of them were really hit THAT hard?), it is clear that these things do not exist in a vaccuum.  The only way, in fact, to explain the Oscars is to look at them as time capsules.  You have to, otherwise you are faced with the grim reality that they mostly have bad taste but for a few eruptions here or there when they really aligned with greatness.

I see the choice of Slumdog in keeping with the post-Obama euphoria and I don’t know how you watch Milk and not think of Prop 8.  I agree with him that a movie like, for instance, Million Dollar Baby could come out any year and be as popular.  I think Slumdog could come out any year and be popular, just not THIS popular.  This is what I think today. I might change my mind.

And as for painting “The Academy” with one brush, I also agree with that and I think it’s a trap we all fall into.  And the only thing that stops me from utterly abandoning that illogical line of reasoning is when Dave Karger turns around and makes a great prediction based on the “they” hypothesis.  When he said last year, “they’ll want to give Michael Clayton something so Tilda Swinton will get the Supporting Actress Oscar.”  I thought, at the time, no way anyone can say “they” will do this or “they” will do that.  But he was right.

| |

9 Responses for "Everything Old is New Again"

  1. matt February 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 am 1

    I think it’s important not to factor the “mood” of the country too highly in analyzing Oscar picks. Look at the year Chicago won, it was a dark year, people did not have the optimism they have now, and yet many people said Chicago won over The Hours, The Pianist, Gangs of New York because they were looking for escapism.

    Now Slumdog looks to be the likely winner, but the mood of the country is much more optimistic than the Chicago year. Yet both Slumdog and Chicago are (to overgeneralize) “feel-good” movies. So while I think the country’s mood plays some role in the race, I think that ultimately it’s important to realize that any facet of the state of the country can be used to “explain” a particular movie’s popularity, sometimes unfairly so.

  2. brainypirate February 3rd, 2009 at 8:53 am 2

    Why not just face the grim reality that the voters–collectively–have bad taste? Why not admit that the Oscars favor certain types of pictures and therefore will prefer middle-weight films that “feel” like Oscar films over better-made films that don’t fit the model. The same with performances.

    I really do think the nominations are hobbled by the fact that voters will only nominate films they’ve had time to see, and this has created a whole industry around “Oscar films,” in which certain films are greenlit with Oscar in mind, then carefully marketed and released for the most Oscar impact. This alone should make us deeply suspicious of just how “free” the voters are to see enough films to make truly good choices. Thank goodness for the preferential voting system they have, that every year allows a few films and actors with limited exposure to get in.

    On top of this, many of these prestige pics have great actors doing good work. So it becomes easy to think that they acting noms are pretty good and to ignore the fact that the performances are just as influenced by the Oscar-industry as the films themselves. I complained after the nominations about how white they are — the only two non-Caucasians in the bunch are both supporting characters in films about white folks. People slammed me for it, but I have to assume that if the Academy is really voting for the best performances, there would be a lot more racial diversity in the acting categories–and I assume it would not necessarily reflect the ethnic distribution of American culture. There are too many great stories to be told about blacks, latinos, asian-americans, indians, arabs, etc. Why aren’t these stories being recognized by the Academy?

    I assume it has to be that these stories aren’t getting made, or they aren’t getting enough visibility when they are, or they aren’t seen as “Oscar” films. But lately I’ve been wondering why so few foreign language performances get in to the acting categories. If the Academy is really about the best in cinema — not just USA cinema, but cinema everywhere — why are so few foreign language films nominated in the major categories?

    Is it because these don’t smell like “Oscar” films? Or that voters don’t like sitting through subtitles? I could see voters feeling unsure how to measure a performance in a language they can’t understand, but surely editing, direction, cinematography, and even production can be recognized outside the language barrier? Do we really want to say that English-language films are simply better on the whole, year in, year out, than the entire output of European and Asian films?

    After years of Oscar watching, I’ve come to face that grim reality that, yes, the voters have bad taste. Well, not bad taste per se, but only decent taste combined with a very mediocre menu. Much of what they vote for is what everyone expects them to vote for, because it’s what the studios make available to them. The younger voters are busy and can’t catch all the smaller films that don’t have studio support; many of the older voters are less active and therefore have more time on their hands, but they also have more traditional tastes–and I assume the Oscar industry plays this fact up: “We know they’ll vote for this type of film, so we’ll market it as such and roll it out to them as a FYC film.”

    That’s my perspective based on years of following this crazy race and reading the articles that come out every year. I’m not anywhere near Hwood, so I could be wrong — I rely on what the journalists and bloggers closer to the action have to say. But everything I read suggests to me the above scenario: a collectively bland voter palate coupled with a mediocre menu leads to predictable (white english-speaking) nominations every year.

    So, why not face the grim reality and recognize that the entire process is fundamentally flawed?

  3. Noah R. February 3rd, 2009 at 9:10 am 3

    Comparing Oscar nominees in a given year to the events surrounding the ceremony is a lot more valuable than he acknowledges. Sure, there are always exceptions, but I feel more often than not that Hollywood likes to use the Oscars to define itself based on a) their activities and b) the times they live in. In another year, Slumdog Millionaire would likely still be a little-picture-that-could but in no way would it be the Oscar frontrunner. Can you imagine it stealing No Country’s glory? I sure as hell can’t. Not to mention the fact that it’s the only film in the five that wasn’t greenlit for the purpose of winning Oscars. It really did come out of nowhere. Only Danny Boyle fans like myself even knew he had a new film out so soon after Sunshine. But as with everything in entertainment, it’s all about the timing.

    No Country was a perfect film for the Bush years. Slumdog is a perfect film for the Obama years.

  4. brainypirate February 3rd, 2009 at 9:17 am 4

    And how in the world did Sunshine not get any noms?

  5. Noah R. February 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 am 5

    I agree. I had Boyle on my personal Best Director list, and surely for the budget it had, the visual effects were stunning. Sadly nobody saw it. It was completely buried by Fox Searchlight (ironically) and only lately has found an audience on DVD. A flawed film but one of his smartest and most interesting. And as much as I love Slumdog, the scene where Cillian Murphy launches himself towards the sun is more moving than the whole of the aforementioned picture.

  6. brainypirate February 3rd, 2009 at 9:24 am 6

    Noah,

    How sad — I saw it opening weekend, having heard about it for months and wondering why it opened in Britain so much earlier than it opened in the States. And I’m not a sci-fi fan or even a Boyle fan — I simply had seen the trailer, thought it looked cool, read some good reviews and watched for it to come out.

    Surely if *I* could learn about it months ahead of time, it didn’t need Fox Searchlight’s help?

  7. Pierre de Plume February 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am 7

    A lot of factors go into what films are lauded at any particular time. Mood of the times is one of them. Why else, for example, would Mrs. Miniver have scored?

    We can castigate the Academy all we want, but the fact of the matter is that AMPAS has its own collective set of priorities. The sooner we accept that, the happier we’ll be.

  8. Paul Outlaw February 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 am 8

    But Chicago is not really a typical “feel-good movie”. It’s a dark and cynical musical about ambition, greed, selfishness, and manipulating the courts and the media that was ahead of its time when it opened on Broadway in 1975. It was a perfect film for the times in 2002.

  9. brainypirate February 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm 9

    Chicago isn’t a typical feel-good movie, but it sure is a fun story that gets the viewers rooting for the manipulators. It certainly isn’t a downer film, even if it is dark and cynical.

    “It was a murder but not a crime!!!!”


Leave a reply


  • Contender Tracker

    Best Picture
    Up in the Air
    Nine
    The Hurt Locker
    An Education
    Precious: Based on the Novel
    Push by Sapphire

    A Serious Man
    Inglourious Basterds
    Up

    Julie & Julia
    Star Trek
    District 9
    Bright Star
    Where the Wild Things Are
    A Single Man

    Best Actor
    Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
    Colin Firth, A Single Man
    George Clooney, Up in the Air
    Matt Damon, The Informant!
    Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
    Viggo Mortensen, The Road
    Ben Foster, The Messenger
    Michael Stuhlbarg, A Serious Man
    Michael Sheen, The Damned United

    Best Actress
    Gabby Sidibe, Precious
    Carey Mulligan, An Education
    Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
    Abbie Cornish, Bright Star
    Helen Mirren, The Last Station
    Michelle Monaghan, Trucker

    Best Supporting Actor
    Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
    Alfred Molina, An Education
    Stanley Tucci, Julie & Julia
    Peter Sarsgaard, An Education
    Robert Duvall, Crazy Heart
    Peter Capaldi, In the Loop
    Zach Galifianakis, The Hangover
    Anthony Mackie, The Hurt Locker
    Brian Geraghty, The Hurt Locker

    Best Supporting Actress
    Mo'Nique,Precious
    Anna Kendrick,Up in the Air
    Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
    Julianne Moore, A Single Man
    Melanie Laurent, Inglourious Basterds
    Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
    Samantha Morton, The Messenger
    Emma Thompson, An Education
    Cara Seymour, An Education

    Best Director
    Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
    Lee Daniels, Precious
    Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
    Lone Scherfig, An Education
    Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
    Joel and Ethan Coen, A Serious Man
    Neill Blomkamp, District 9
    Spike Jonze, Where the Wild Things Are
    Tom Ford, A Single Man
    Jane Campion, Bright Star

    Best Original Screenplay
    Mark Boal, The Hurt Locker
    Joel and Ethan Coen, A Serious Man
    Jane Campion, Bright Star
    Quentin Tarantino,Inglourious Basterds
    Michael Haneke,White Ribbon
    Bob Peterson, Pete Docter,Up
    Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber, 500 Days of Summer

    Best Adapted Screenplay
    Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner, Up in the Air
    Nick Hornby, An Education
    Spike Jonze, Dave Eggars, Where the Wild Things Are
    Peter Morgan, The Damned United
    Geoffrey Fletcher, Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
    Scott Burns, The Informant!
    Tom Ford, A Single Man

    Best Editing

    Chris Innis, Bob Murawski, The Hurt Locker
    Sally Menke, Inglourious Basterds
    Dana E. Glauberman,, Up in the Air
    Joel and Ethan Coen,, A Serious Man

    Best Cinematography
    Greig Fraser,Bright Star
    Robert Richardson,Inglourious Basterds
    Roger Deakins, A Serious Man
    Christian Berger, White Ribbon
    Bruno Delbonnel,Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    Barry Ackroyd, The Hurt Locker

    Best Art Direction

    Where the Wild Things Are
    Julie & Julia
    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    Bright Star
    Inglourious Basterds
    White Ribbon
    District 9
    A Serious Man

    Best Sound Mixing

    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    District 9
    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
    The Hurt Locker
    Star Trek

    Best Sound Editing

    District 9
    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
    Star Trek
    Up

    Best Costume Design
    Janet Patterson, Bright Star
    Jany Temime,Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
    Anna B. Sheppard,Inglourious Basterds
    Mary Zophre, A Serious Man
    Colleen Atwood, Public Enemies
    Consolata Boyle,Cheri

    Best Original Score
    Carter Burwell, Karen O,Where the Wild Things Are
    Carter Burwell,A Serious Man
    Michael Giacchino,Up
    Alexandre Desplat, Cheri
    Elliot Goldenthal, Public Enemies

    Best Foreign Language Film (submissions)

    Letters from Father Jacob, Finland
    White Wedding, South Africa
    A Prophet, France
    Dawson, Isla 10, Chile
    Nobody to Watch Over Me, Japan
    Prince of Tears, Hong Kong
    No puedo vivir sin ti, Taiwan
    Kelin, Kazakhstan
    Mother, Korea
    The White Ribbon, Germany
    Silent Army, The Netherlands


    Best Documentary Feature

    The Beaches of Agnes
    Burma VJ
    The Cove
    Every Little Step
    Facing Ali
    Food, Inc.
    Garbage Dreams
    Living in Emergency
    The Most Dangerous Man in America
    Mugabe and the White African
    Sergio
    Soundtrack for a Revolution
    Under Our Skin
    Valentino
    Which Way Home


    Best Animated Feature
    Up
    The Princess and the Frog
    Coraline
    The Fantastic Mr. Fox
    A Christmas Carol
    Mary and Max
    Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
    Ponyo


    Best Visual Effects
    Star Trek
    District 9
    A Christmas Carol
    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    Transformers


    Best Makeup

    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    District 9

    Best Song

    Best Live Action Short

    Best Animated Short

    Best Documentary Short

    China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province
    The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner
    The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant
    Lt. Watada
    Music by Prudence
    Rabbit a la Berlin
    Tell Them Anything You Want: A Portrait of Maurice Sendak
    Woman Rebel

  • Ampas Breakdown

    Actors-1,222
    Producers-462
    Executives-436
    Sound-411
    Writers-388
    Art Directors-373
    Directors-375
    Public Relations-370
    Members at Large-254
    Shorts/Feature Ani-335
    Visual Effects-272
    Music-233
    Editors-227
    Cinematographers-197
    Documentary-145
    Makeup-115
    Total Voting Members -approx 6,000
  • Tuesday, December 1, 2009: Official Screen Credits forms due

    Monday, December 28, 2009: Nominations ballots mailed

    Saturday, January 23, 2010: Nominations polls close 5 p.m. PT

    Tuesday, February 2, 2010: Nominations announced 5:30 a.m. PT, Samuel Goldwyn Theater

    Wednesday, February 10, 2010: Final ballots mailed

    Monday, February 15, 2010: Nominees Luncheon

    Saturday, February 20, 2010: Scientific and Technical Achievement Awards presentation

    Tuesday, March 2, 2010: Final polls close 5 p.m. PT

    Sunday, March 7, 2010: 82nd Annual Academy Awards presentation