Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts

Sunday, February 24, 2013

2013 Oscar Extravaganza - Seth MacFarlane Presents Three Hours of My Most Flamboyant Nightmares

A big question for the cinema this year, presumably ignited here by Andrew O'Hehir, was whether or not it was dead. I say it is not. At this point in our lives, it is likely that our discussion of contemporary film has slowed, yes. This is all part of the simplification of the form: movies are, as capitalism demands, increasingly industrialized and thus visibly homogenized, but that didn't stop studios from releasing some surprisingly satisfying fare. It's just that most of it is juvenile and we aren't juvenile anymore. Between a spate of typically strong indie efforts, as well as numerous underrepresented and mostly unseen genre flicks, this was actually a decent year. Certainly nothing that merits the apocalyptic cries of Internet culture journalists.

Something that does not help this argument is the Oscars. In the last decade they have fallen somewhat out of vogue, their ratings considerable but still falling from previous peaks. They are routinely mocked by just about everyone watching, be they notable pundits and Twitter laymen. Once the most visible accumulation of notable events in the preceding year's film output, the glitziness of the Oscars has never felt less like a way to celebrate movies, but rather the increasingly burgeoning mantle of celebrity culture. Oscar has never been about the films, of course, nor the performances therein. The problem is that even in a year where the categories are relatively strong, the illusion doesn't hold up anymore - the ceremony is often too frothy and hokey and out-of-touch to accurately represent the championing of some Very Serious Drama. At a point in our lives where most of us are probably too grown up to derive much enjoyment from the Academy's three hour barrage of in-jokes and lame skits, it is increasingly up to us to develop our own film culture, which some simply don't have the time to do without the Oscars' guiding hand. No shame in that. I will probably always watch these goddamn things, because I love the formulas and analysis that go into championing a Best Screenplay, Actress, Picture. I just don't place much faith in them, regardless of the quality of their selections.

GOOD WORK IS ITS OWN REWARD.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

2012 Oscar Extravaganza - Featuring a Bunch of Shit I Didn't Watch!

I like just about everything there is to like about the Oscars except the show itself. And the politics. And the fact that the Academy is a bunch of old white dudes, and that their choices tend to reflect that. And the notion the ceremony propagates that an actor is not truly rewarded for the creative work he or she does, but by some circle-jerk validation from the very institution that dicks them around incessantly in the first place. So, uh, I don't like the Oscars. But I like trying to sound informed! And you can too, if you follow my highly scientific Oscar predictions. 

(I didn't feel like doing a nine-panel picture for every Best Picture nominee, so here's a picture from The Tree of Life. Lazy fuck!)

BEST PICTURE
(x) The Tree of Life
(x) The Artist
() The Descendants
() Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
(x) The Help
() Hugo
(x) Midnight in Paris
(x) Moneyball
() War Horse

What's What?: Personally, I think this is a disappointing crop of nominees. The Academy didn't pay much attention to some really great work this year, which is reflected in every one of these categories but most harshly in Best Picture. As far as keeping up, I didn't do all that great a job this year, but then again I wasn't expecting things like Extremely Loud and Whatever or War Horse to get any sort of attention. I'm thrilled to see The Tree of Life in but I get the feeling that it probably scraped by at eighth or ninth place - can you imagine a voting constituency that was uninspired enough to champion Extremely Blahhh appreciating something as abstract as The Tree of Life? The Help is not Best at anything, except being cute and colorful and really poorly filmed/edited. Midnight in Paris getting a nod is simple adherence to Woody Allen's annual pattern: if he made a movie that didn't totally blow, the Academy falls over themselves trying to reward him in some capacity. And as fun as The Artist was, I don't think people are going to be very impassioned about it a decade from now.
What's Missing?: Man, where to start? Shame and Melancholia were both inhibited by an excess of penis and an excess of incendiary director, respectively. I imagine Drive was a little too garish for the Academy's tastes. Certified Copy and Beginners probably went unseen by voters and Bridesmaids is too straight-comedy for them to want to honor. I dunno, honestly, there are about fifteen or twenty films I saw last year that could effortlessly replace half of this list.
What's Winning?: Probably The Artist. The Descendants is hot on its heels, but Midnight in Paris and The Help might be able to ride their strong box-offices and general public affection to potentially threatening territory.
What Should Win?: The Tree of Life, but it doesn't have a shot in hell. Short of that, Moneyball, I guess. Why does saying that make me feel so empty?