I believe that in years past I would post some comments on which films/performers/craft people I hoped would win Academy Awards. This year, it completely slipped my mind. In fact, it wasn't until the program was three quarters over that I remembered and turned it on to watch. My impression of the win by The Artist as Best Picture kind of confirms some comments I made here after seeing it awhile back: voters obviously were charmed by its gimmick, because anyone with a memory (or some interest) in movies made prior to about 1980 would know just how derivative it is. It's a mystery to me how something so unoriginal can be worthy of an award. Yes, it's effective as entertainment, and I don't mean to take that away from the movie, but I'm at a loss about how anyone can see it as anything more than that, especially when it was up against something like Tree of Life, which was so startlingly original (well, as original as any movie that could garner an Oscar nomination could be). Even Hugo, which mined pretty much the same theme was more innovative, making the contemporary technology of 3D compatible (even essential ) to an understanding of early cinema. If The Artist truly is the best movie of the past year, than it ought to stand as one of the all-time great silents, and I don't think it's even close to being in the running. That's no reason to avoid seeing it, of course; but if you like it, then go out and find some classics by Buster Keaton, F.W. Murnau, King Vidor, Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith, etc. etc. and see if they don't really bowl you over.
Monday, February 27, 2012
A Quick Oscar Comment
I believe that in years past I would post some comments on which films/performers/craft people I hoped would win Academy Awards. This year, it completely slipped my mind. In fact, it wasn't until the program was three quarters over that I remembered and turned it on to watch. My impression of the win by The Artist as Best Picture kind of confirms some comments I made here after seeing it awhile back: voters obviously were charmed by its gimmick, because anyone with a memory (or some interest) in movies made prior to about 1980 would know just how derivative it is. It's a mystery to me how something so unoriginal can be worthy of an award. Yes, it's effective as entertainment, and I don't mean to take that away from the movie, but I'm at a loss about how anyone can see it as anything more than that, especially when it was up against something like Tree of Life, which was so startlingly original (well, as original as any movie that could garner an Oscar nomination could be). Even Hugo, which mined pretty much the same theme was more innovative, making the contemporary technology of 3D compatible (even essential ) to an understanding of early cinema. If The Artist truly is the best movie of the past year, than it ought to stand as one of the all-time great silents, and I don't think it's even close to being in the running. That's no reason to avoid seeing it, of course; but if you like it, then go out and find some classics by Buster Keaton, F.W. Murnau, King Vidor, Charlie Chaplin, D.W. Griffith, etc. etc. and see if they don't really bowl you over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dr John,
I really enjoyed the Artist! And yes I have seen several silent movies (some of the performers you mentioned even). I enjoy going to movies that truly entertain, have a purpose and helps me to escape into other worlds. While I had not seen most of this years nominees, most really didn't do anything to pull me in to wanting to see them. Not to say they were not good - just the way I am. I have a challenge then for you... looking over the best picture winners of the Oscars (you can take all of them or only deal with certain eras) -which movies do you feel really deserved that honor. I know there were always a number that were given due to personalities associated with them, and other that were completely ignored or bypassed, so only looking at the winners- which, in your opinion are the true winners of the best pictures of their respective years.
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
I hope you get that I liked The Artist too, and that I understand that the Academy Awards are not really about awarding the "best" even if they sometimes hit that mark. Here are the ones I feel they likely got right (though I haven't done an exhaustive search to check the competition): 1927 Sunrise; 1934 It Happened One Night; 1943 Casablanca; 1946 The Best Years of Our Lives; 1972 The Godfather; 1974 The Godfather Part 2; 1975 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest; 1992 Unforgiven; 2007 No Country for Old Men. I'm sure there are others, but those are all in the category of being masterpieces in any year. The real obvious misses to me are: 1952 The Greatest Show on Earth; 1968 Oliver!; 1973 The Sting; 1976 Rocky; 1983 Terms of Endearment; 1997 Titanic; 2000 Gladiator; 2002 Chicago. Likewise, I'm sure there are others, but those kind of jump out at me. Just out of curiosity: how many of this year's nominees did you see?
Dr. John
Like most years I don't get to the movies very often, actually only saw The Artist (yes I know you enjoyed it too). I would have liked to have seen- The Help, Hugo, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, War Horse, and I have mixed feeling about Midnight in Paris. Others I felt were all about the hype of who was in them (surprisingly I am no big fan of Clooney or Pitt- almost have an anti-feeling for them they get hyped so much) so no interest in them. Will probably watch some of these when they come on Starz. But for instance I heard so much about The Social Network (from last year I think)- finally got to watch it and thought it was an awful movie! They portrayed Zuckerburg (?) as an absolute ***hole, almost every scene the entire cast was drinking, or taking drugs... It was very disagreeable to me and don't understand how anyone could like it! Back in 2008 Slumdog Millionaire won- saw that one and even though it was rough (visually) in a number of scenes, I did enjoy it - story was compelling and I could see the quality of the acting there. Likewise I thought The Sting was a good movie and have (and will) watch that anytime it is on, character development was great,superb score, story was wonderful. I see it was up against American Graffiti (I could see that one winning too) and The Exorcist (never wanted to see that one) and two other I don't think most people would know, but why do you say it shouldn't have won? Are you against anything that was a commercial success? Does it need to be where a movie delves into the dark, deep, or highbrow dramas? I know this is all highly subjective, and we two never totally agreed on what we like/dislike, but this is just my 2 cents (or is now about 25 cents?).
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
I don't know why you suspect I'm against anything that was commercial-- most of the movies I mentioned as deserving the Oscar were huge hits. Granted they are mostly dramas, but so are most of the ones I said didn't deserve to win. Look, the point is we aren't talking about what's good, we're talking about what's great (or anyway, I would expect that to be where the bar is set for something named best of the year). There are lots of movies that are fun and easily, even entertainingly, kill a couple of hours and there's nothing wrong with that. But if the point is to identify true achievement, then the bar has to be higher. I'd argue that, as in any of the arts, that level is achieved when the work displays considerable amounts of originality, is technically superior, and challenges or moves the audience in some way. All of that can occur in an entertaining package of course(in fact, throw that in as another criteria). So, to take one of your examples, to me The Sting was unoriginal, technically undistinguished, and rather forgettable. The fact that it held my attention for a couple of hours in an unoffending way is some compensation, but not enough for me to rank it among the greats. I do think American Graffiti would have been a better choice that year-- but check out some of the films that weren't even nominated from that year: The Last Detail, Bang the Drum Slowly, Paper Moon, Serpico, even The Way We Were (at least three of which were big hits). By the way-- in rejecting Clooney and Pitt movies out of hand because they're hyped so much, aren't you kind of guilty of rejecting commercial movies yourself? Personally I consider them to be two of the best actors working, and as such likely to choose interesting projects, or redeem any formulaic blockbusters they may choose to appear in.
Dr. John
Post a Comment