This year's Official list of Nominees was released Monday and I was shocked at several glaring omissions, and a couple of zany inclusions-- all of which completely upstaged the decent, and pleasantly surprising nominations.
I'll start with the good before the bad...
Most impressive was Nick Nolte being recognized for excellent work in Warrior, which could be simply described as the MMA version of The Fighter, or more specifically pitched as a look at the bond between two estranged brothers whose metaphorical conflict becomes literal after a long journey to the climax during which they must first battle their own demons. With Nick Nolte in it. I was afraid that, because of the subject matter ("Another fight movie!? Who wants to see that...") it would be overlooked. I was wrong, and couldn't be happier. Easily his best recent performance, even managing to steal scenes from an excellent (and abrasive) Tom Hardy.
Rooney Mara for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was another pleasant surprise considering the shadow of Noomi Rapace's performance of the same role in a previous adaptation. The fact that she was able to make me forget about any other incarnation of Lisbeth Salander is impressive, and I'm glad it was recognized despite the fact this excellently constructed film is missing from so many other categories.
From here, I think I'm going to get nasty...
A couple years ago they changed the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten so that they could give more films a chance. This move was quite foolish because it convoluted the voting pool, but there was justification in that they wanted to include more 'popular' films. More commercial affairs. So where the hell was Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows Pt2? Not typical best picture material, no, but if you're going to do this so that you could nominate popular movies, why not something that was a solid inclusion in its genre/ frenchise? Where are said popular movies, Academy!? Not only that, but they didn't even nominate ten this year. After aaaallll that, they only put nine into the official running for 2011....
SO WHERE THE FUCK WAS DRIVE!?
It took me a while of scanning the list again and again before I realized that this exquisitely constructed, POPULAR film that has been sweeping awards in several different festivals, was completely ignored in every category but sound editing. Nicolas Winding Refn for best director? Nope. Ryan Gosling for best Actor? Nope. Carey Mulligan for Actress (or supporting, even?). Nope. Even Bryan Cranston or Albert Brooks for best Supporting Actor (I'd stand behind either, but Brooks takes the cake playing completely against-type).
Far too cool, I s'pose.
Drive is definitely that 10th movie, and I've got a theory. It's not new, but I need to vent because it's silly. But we'll get to that shortly...
...because we all live in a world where Michael Fassbender is nominated for nothing despite the fact he worked his arse off this year, featured lead and supporting in several flicks, and got no recognition at all for any of it. I figured Shame would be pure Oscar fodder considering its deep digging into human desire and emotions with raw performances by a small cast, but alas I was wrong. Apparently they don't like inappropriate nudity, or sexuality.
Certainly not. Not even a little.
But a few years ago The Reader was nominated. (Instead of The Dark Knight, I might add, which was a commercially and critically successful film. In fact they say that's the reason we now have 10 slots. Or had, I guess.)
Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close made it this year, though. I have no idea what this movie is about except Tom Hanks is in it for a little while and the preview I saw was incredibly dull.
The poor thing has a 6.3 on IMDB.
47% on Rotten Tomatoes.
Yeah Academy, REALLY popular choice there dicksmacks.
I'm sorry. I'm possibly not being fair-- maybe Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is a good movie? But if you're going to ditch the 10 nominees, opt for only 9 for some reason, then how the hell does this film get on instead of Drive? Girl With The Dragon Tattoo? The Adventures Of Tintin? It seems callous to leave that 10th nomination bare when there are so many that could fill its void. They don't even have to win, guys. People say all the time 'To be nominated is enough.' (That's what Scott Rudin is writing in his diary over and over I'm sure.)
And speaking of Tintin...
Puss In Boots, yes? But not the animated film that was several years in the making and provided some awesome advances in motion tracking technology.
I could puke.
We're in the same place now, in terms of the animated category, that we were a few years ago when traditional animation was waning and digital was beginning to occupy the forefront. When do we start embracing the fact that this is animation, too? And what's more, it's not just voice acting any more but real people embodying the animated characters!? It's just another push forward.
This guy worked to record his voice in a studio for two weeks and posed for this picture. He is now getting more recognition than...
These guys, who spent a couple months putting on the tight suits and actually acting their roles.
AND SPEAKING OF MOTION CAPTURE... Andy Serkis (right, above) not being recognized for his work on Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (a surprise hit) is a crying shame, and one that will be regretted in a few years when all current Academy members are dead and gone, and forward thinking young new professionals will take their place and MAYBE, just maybe the Academy Awards will reclaim their relevancy in the world when it comes to recognizing quality flicks... sorry, rant. What I meant to say is that it will be regretted in a few years time when industry professionals recognize mo-cap as a legitimate acting form at which Andy Serkis is at the forefront, and rocking it.
Whatever Nomination system they have now is clearly inadequate and broken, governed by old purists who can't handle Ryan Gosling impaling some guy's head.
But this was OK in 1996? Huh?
A few hundred years ago all parts were played by men, on a stage. We've kind of come a long way since then in terms of acting, storytelling, writing, technology... but apparently not very much in mentality.
Change in this industry should be encouraged! I'm well aware none of the above happened overnight but lately we seem to be moving at a snail's pace when it comes to seeing past the barrier of perceived smut, placed in the way by old traditions.
I think it's time that the Academy start embracing the paradigm shifts currently ongoing in the industry in which it's trying to promote and recognize quality and innovation. Contemporary quality films are not 'safe' any more by the standards of old conservative academy members who outnumber the recent inductees.
It is indeed time for Hollywood to mature a little. Something needs to change to compliment the times. A new voting system, maybe? People's Choice? There are a billion options, I'm sure. Grow up, guys. Michael Fassbender has a penis. BIG DEAL. You constantly nominate (and award) girls who take their tops off for roles, why not a man who drops trou?
Was his bigger than yours?
It's sexist, elitist little stuff like that which will take away the credibility of a once prestigious award and drop it to a point where a Razzie has more clout.
Please, no more?
One could say that the studios presiding over the aforementioned snubs are to blame for not properly promoting their films as options for nominations, 'for your consideration'. Is that kind of promotion a requirement*? Or is it too much to ask that academy members watch good movies as professionals who know their industry?
Will anyone kick up a stink, I wonder?
Peter Travers of Rolling Stone Magazine already has, and seems to share many of my thoughts. Or do I share his? How does that work, if he's the more popular guy?
I'd love to see an issue made of all this. But I know it won't. The Oscars are set in their ways for decades to come, and I'll just have to resign to this fact and let it happen.
Will I watch this year? (which always seems to be the ultimate question)
Yes. Because Billy Crystal is not to be missed. He's the only man I know who could possibly bring life to this year's ceremony, and that'll be refreshing after Ricky Gervais' dull (oddly preserved) turn at the Golden Globes.
But will any of it matter to me, like it used to?
Likely not.
The Academy Awards have never MATTERED in so far as they are not really a weather vane for edgy, high-quality or even sign-o-the-times pictures. They're all about money, always have been. From "How Green Was My Valley" stealing awards from "Citizen Kane" to "The King's Speech" beating out "The Social Network" and "True Grit" last year, the Academy Awards puffing smoke about picture that will earn in an effort of bolster the careers of those involved so they will make even more marketable films next year. "Shame" is never going to place in the Oscars because it's a relatively small picture about a chronic masturbator, nor is Meek's Cutoff going to place because nothing happens and its kind of weird.
ReplyDeleteIt just so happens that this year's "Oscar bait" films are really poor, "The Iron Lady" and "War Horse" have done really poorly critically, but people are going to turn out for Meryl Streep and a spielberg war picture. "The Help" is apalling but it makes white people feel good so it, too, has done well, comercially. "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" is my favorite novel of all time, and even I don't have any interest in that movie but the Academy darest not snub an Eric Roth-penned film lest they miss the oportunity to see some small, heavily symbolic object floating through the air or on water or whatever.
So where are we when the years undeniably BEST films are tiny, weird indies and the best Oscar-y films are kind of embrassing? Well, we end up with a glut of token nominations (RE: Woody Allen being nominated for everything with a really weak picture) and a bunch of snubs that really smart because of the quality of work being ignored. It's in such a situation that the Academy exposes the man behind the curtain; these statues do not actually award hard-work and talent, they never really have (only when it's convenient or when it's too late) but they are about saleability and popularity.
For the record, while I agree that the system needs to change, making the oscars a people's choice-based system would make the awards even worse. That's why The People's Choice Awards are so pathetic every year.