Author's Note: This post is about movies, as will be many others on this site. That said, posts on any topic are welcome and will be featured in the future.
Tonight, the 83rd Academy Awards air in what is likely the most watched and anticipated awards show in any industry. Being a fan of movies and having watched the show many times, I've felt the need to resolve my feelings surrounding it and provide some perspective or provoke some discussion on the significance of the show. In general, I think the importance of the awards is understated by many; in particular, I think the Academy needs to be more clear about the rational for certain winners.
The general purpose of the Academy Awards is to recognize the excellence of professionals in the film industry. However, rarely is the 'most excellent' film or performance chosen. Far too often, the Academy seems too easily swayed by momentum, word of mouth sentiment, humanistic storytelling, and in particular relevance to the time of the award than they do by the quality of the films and performances in question. This year is no different in this regard, especially in the category of 'Best Picture'. The two favorites from the field of ten are 'The King's Speech' and 'The Social Network', and although both are great films, they have their flaws; as of writing, it seems as though 'The King's Speech' will win. While I feel as though it is the better film, it strikes me as appealing too obviously to people's sympathy for the disabled (to put it bluntly, it attempts to go 'half-retard for awards', as per Robert Downey Jr.'s recommendation in 'Tropic Thunder'); that being said, in this case I don't feel the director should be punished for choosing such an excellent story.
To say that 'The Social Network', on the other hand, is culturally relevant would be a gross understatement - but it also does not account for the fact that this film did little to explain how social network's change people's interactions or affect their lives, not to mention the fact that few if any of the Academy members would be users of the technology. Nevertheless, people seem intent on having a modern day 'Citizen Kane' (which is a poor comparison in every regard), and it may very well win. The fact that a number of better movies were released this year seems, frustratingly, irrelevant to many.
The Academy also seems to consistently enjoy picking moderately successful films released at the right time. Smaller art house movies rarely stand a chance, while the Academy seems too elitist to deign to present awards to more commercial fare. Christopher Nolan seems to have been unlucky in the last couple of years in the latter sense; while his movie's often leave me wanting a bit more, I always find his work entertaining and thought provoking, as do millions of others. 'Inception' managed to garner a Best Picture nod, but 'The Dark Knight' somehow did not several years ago, and I would be astounded if he wins; perhaps the Academy feels that an original screenplay based on the nature of dreams, loss, and reality is less interesting than a feel good adapted story about a stuttering monarch. I won't even mention the poor treatment given to foreign and animated films
These same criticisms are present in the awards given to individuals. Traditionally, films that feature themes such as overcoming oppression or inequality appeal to the left leaning academy, with movies involving gay rights and racial equality receiving a boost in recent years. Two years ago, Mickey Rourke was robbed of a Best Actor Oscar for his work in 'The Wrestler' by Sean Penn in 'Milk'; this year, history may repeat itself as somehow Annette Benning's work in 'The Kid's Are Alright' seems more deserving to many than Natalie Portman's performance in 'Black Swan'. The Academy would do well to choose the most deserving performance, and not one that forwards a given political agenda.
Nearly every year, arguments are made for certain directors or actors not on the basis of an individual performance but on the body of work. People who side in the latter camp fail to acknowledge the importance of lifetime achievement awards; the Academy Award's are for the best work in that year. Now that Martin Scorsese has won his Best Picture Oscar for his somewhat underwhelming 'The Departed', this issue is discussed with less regularity, but I'm sure it will be brought up again in the future, especially in the case of potential repeat winners.
Finally, the many people question the importance of the Oscars. Many movies have benefitted greatly financially from the bump in profile that comes with an Oscar nomination or win. This also often translates to greater artistic control for directors and performers in later work, which generally leads to higher quality work. By inaccurately presenting awards and nominations, the Academy misses the opportunity to give a struggling actress or director a deserved boost in their career and ensure that the best roles and projects are given to the most talented and deserving actors and directors (not to mention costume and set designers, audio technicians, composers, etc). For many, this is the only chance at an award they will have, and whether they admit it or not the awards always matter on a personal level; few performers are secure enough in their abilities to not seek some form of external validation of the quality of their work - it is what their career consists of. If you don't believe me, look at Mickey Rourke face right after he lost to Penn, as mentioned above. By not giving awards to the most deserving recipient, the Academy robs performers not just of future earnings but also often damages them emotionally.
With that said, I'm looking forward to this year's show, and mostly just hope it doesn't run too long
No comments:
Post a Comment