MOVIES ARE MAGIC

On the 2011 Academy Awards

I went to see The King’s Speech on Chistmas Day - the height of awards season at the movies - with my parents and brother and great-aunt. I found it to be a great movie in that context: the emotional and psychological study of an interesting character trait, the overcoming of a flaw for the betterment of one’s self and the whole country, an uplifting quasi-heady crowd-pleaser for all ages, 27-90 in this case. Also, wholesome, safe and rather predictable. The King’s Speech is a very good movie. I don’t think it’s a great one, because it does nothing to advance cinema, to explore uncharted human experience. As much as it opens our eyes and hearts and minds, it doesn’t do so to anything particularly new or significant. Historically, that this triumph of will and personal accomplishment happened 60 years ago, is neat, and the film certainly justifies attention in its able depiction of one man’s fight to prove himself.

It got that in the form of 12 Oscar nominations, which is about 11 too many. It should win one. Colin Firth’s King George VI is terrific. To be able to embody this stutter so convincingly, with such sympathy, with such pathos, is just great, and his embodiment of this man’s burdened quest, complete with restrained emotion is truly deserving of the Oscar. He has good support with Geoffrey Rush at his side, who performs admirably, and Guy Pearce as his brother; Pearce also turns in a good supporting performance in Animal Kingdom.

But in terms of Oscar-winning supporting performances, The Fighter - which deserves all seven of its nominations - should be recognized with both trophies. Christian Bale’s animated and inspired performance as a conflicted, decaying man is beautiful, in the sensitivity he brings to the aging boxer’s deluded mind and inner psychological crisis. Both Amy Adams and Melissa Leo are terrific as the girlfriend and mother, respectively, of Mark Wahlberg’s subdued hero. Either should win; Melissa Leo holds the edge, I suppose, because this feels like the part she was born to play. That the performances in The Fighter are so damn good and rich and powerful is a testament to its director, David O.Russell, and the script, and to the unsung hero, producer Mark Wahlberg, whose preparation for this role should have landed him a nomination as well.

The Social Network is arguably the most important film of the year, as no other film has captured the cultural zeitgeist quite like this one. It has inspired countless commentaries and discussions, and thematically, delves into the cemented internet age, our obsession with finance, with litigation, with our self-image, our passion for credit, for attention… The Social Network deserves its eight nominations, and deserves some wins. I would be happy with it winning best director for David Fincher, as he is truly a masterful modern director, even as this film was not my favorite. Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is definitely good, but not wildly inventive, fascinating or daring.

But it is Black Swan that is the year’s best film. It engages in themes of identity, ambition, passion, corruption and humanity with an expertly precise and creative sense of craft. It surprises, delights, indulges, horrifies and excites in its deconstruction of the psyche; it is high art. It deserves to win all five categories for which it was nominated, including best direction for Darren Aaronofsky, best actress for Natalie Portman - who so exquisitely embodies this frail, driven person - and best picture. No other film caused such hysteria, such sudden laughter, such unexpected horror, such tumult, drama, buzz. The film pushes cinema to its limits, using contemporary digital effects to perfectly enhance Portman’s paranoia (her skin bubbles and tears, her reflection betrays her). The film is sparing and tight, epic in its exploration of psyche, in its rumination on the subjectivity reality.

Let us bask for a moment in this: David O. Russell, David Fincher and Darren Aaronofsky are at the top of their games, and one of them should be awarded this grandest prize. If you told me five years ago that the directors of I <3 Huckabees, Fight Club, and Requiem for a Dream would be battling for the Oscar, I don’t know if I could believe it. These men are iconoclasts in the film world, or so I once thought. I guess I thought that about Green Day and Blink 182 in 1995 too. If this trend continues, Giorgos Lanthimos will get the nod ten years from now. His film, Dogtooth, was the most creative and astounding picture this year - truly unique, baffling and amazing. It probably won’t win Best Foreign Language film, but it was. Maybe Alejandro González Iñárritu will get the recognition he deserves for his gorgeously intense perspective, which has never been as good as it is in Biutiful, an outstanding film. In fact, Javier Bardem might outperform Colin Firth. His portrayal of a dying man in conflict is the most emotionally powerful thing in cinemas right now.

Somewhere was another favorite of mine. It wasn’t nominated for anything. Sofia Coppola is an easy target to mock, to criticize for being an out-of-touch rich kid who makes boring autobiographical pictures. The truth is closer to A.O. Scott’s take: it is a brilliantly realized poetic meditation on the vacuity of modernity. She was awarded for Lost in Translation in the writing category, which generally recognizes more purely artistic vision. It is this award for which I generally hold most hope, figuring that the Academy won’t side with my personal taste in any major way otherwise. If the Oscar continues to highlight the independent spirit with its writing categories, Winter’s Bone and The Kids Are Alright will win, as they are the the most buzz-worthy under-the-radar films of the nominations. Unfortunately, Winter’s Bone isn’t anything too special, save for an intimate study of tribal behavior in the Ozarks, which I simply didn’t care for. I found it belabored and monotonous. The Kids Are Alright is delightful.

Both the Original and Adapted Screenplay awards are crowded fields. True Grit was fun, and indeed, the writing snapped wonderfully; I walked out wanting to talk like they did in the old days, in the wild west. Its inclusion in the writing category makes sense, then, I suppose. But in no way does it deserve ten nominations. It wasn’t amazing or anything. The Coen Brothers are such outstanding filmmakers, though, that anything they touch merits acclaim. They just know how to make movies: writing, editing, sound mixing, directing, art and design; it makes sense. But they shouldn’t win any of them for this picture. 127 Hours was good. Better than Danny Boyle’s previous work, Slumdog Millionaire, which ranks as one of the most overrated movies of all time. But 6 nominations? It shouldn’t win any. Trainspotting and 28 Days Later are more deserving. Toy Story 3 was terrific, and deserves its five nominations (and one guaranteed win, as much as I enjoyed the other animated contender, The Illusionist - so charming and magical and different… could the Academy possibly honor French sensibility over Pixar?!). Toy Story 3 a wonderful tale told well, and I support it in the Adapted Screenplay category. …Too bad Charlie Kaufman didn’t adapt anything this year.

Of all the reflection on movies from the past year, there is very little given to the most anticipated film of 2010: Inception. It did garner eight nominations, most of which are warranted, given its technical achievement. It’s too bad that Christopher Nolan isn’t included with his badass director counterparts. I guess he should have made a better movie. That being said, Art Direction, Visual Effects, Sound Editing and Mixing might as well be thrown this way. Original Screenplay, not so much.

Cinematography doesn’t often get discussed, but it defines an viewing experience. Film is a camera-based art, and the the photography of a motion picture is inseparable from the art piece. The best-shot film of 2010 wasn’t even nominated for this award: I Am Love is the most purely beautiful cinema of the year, and to ignore its cinematography is a grave injustice. (It was nominated for the less significant Costume Design, unlike Rodarte’s work on Black Swan; the nomination process is stupid, clearly.) True Grit, despite being wildly overrated, justifiably appears here due to the excellent work of Roger Deacons, who has somehow never won this category, despite being nominated eight previous times (for the likes of Fargo, The Man Who Wasn’t There and The Assassination of Jesse James). This shouldn’t win, but the Academy is known to award someone for career achievements in times like this. Perhaps he’s due. Matthew Libatique deserves it more, though. His cinematography in Black Swan is essential to the viewer’s relationship to the films psychology. Inception and The Social Network were wonderfully shot too. The King’s Speech was shot very well, but is least deserving in this category. If it wins, the whole awards show is totally fixed (which is likely the case).

The trickiest category this year is that of Documentary Feature. What is a documentary, anyway? Lately, it’s been the vehicle for creative investigative journalism, and that remains this year. Three of the nominees fit that bill here: Restrepo takes another look at Iraq. I missed this film, unfortunately. Gasland explores a little-known environmental catastrophe called hydraulic fracturing (fracking), which is ruining the United States’ drinking water due to big business’ (Haliburton again) hot pursuit of natural gas. It’s a serious concern, and a very creative film, woven together though the personal experiences of director Josh Fox. Charles Ferguson’s Inside Job tops it, though, in filmic expertise, socio-political relevance and intellectual and emotional impact. This film, which pointedly chronicles our modern financial crisis, needs to be seen and heard by everyone, and the Academy needs to push it. The conversation doesn’t end there,though. I ask about the nature of documentary film because of this other nominee that challenges everything we know: Exit through the Gift Shop is a quixotically brilliant art-piece of a documentary that invigorates the genre. What is real? If William Randolph Hearst starts a war for the sake of selling newspapers, is it news? This film is refreshingly philosophical, and a barrel full of fun to boot. If the Academy Awards were truly about artistry in cinema, Banksy’s film would not only win here, it would be nominated for Best Picture.

But what are The Oscars, really? Every year I get together with friends and enjoy the spectacle because I am an avid lover of cinema. And every year, I am disappointed, as Crash beats Brokeback Mountain, as Lord of the Rings sweeps every category, as Where the Wild Things Are is completely snubbed and Inglourious Basterds loses all traction to the likes of Avatar and The Hurt Locker, as the independent films that change my life barely appear on the nominations list. We have an Oscar poll that I’ve never come close to winning. As much knowledge as I accrue over the year, I rarely side with the Academy, except in obvious circumstances. The Academy Awards aim to celebrate cinematic achievement. I take it to mean that the nominations and awards should recognize outstanding artistic vision and thought, but that has proven to be beyond the scope of this glitzy, political awards show that most often recognizes mainstream films in safe and predictable ways. The King’s Speech fits that bill, and may walk away with the trophies, thereby justifying the studios that belabored so much for the prestige. Dogtooth, Exit through the Gift Shop, Somewere, I Am Love may be overlooked entirely, but these are the films that inspire new generations of filmmakers and cinephiles. Fortunately, Black Swan and The Fighter have gotten the attention and respect they deserve. I will be rooting for them.

1. baking-withpeeta liked this
2. moviesaremagic posted this