This column might be deja vu for you if you read this blog around Oscar time last year. But how could I deprive the good people of Central New Jersey the benefit of my bitching.
It's Oscar time again, and only a grouch would grumble about it.
I don't much care about the outcome of Sunday's ceremony, but I've watched just about every Oscar telecast for the past 20 or so years. And as a self-designated arbiter of taste and a culture-war chicken hawk, when America watches something, I watch America.
America loves a good contest. And thanks to the Academy's spotty record in choosing which films to honor, we can always count on a good argument.
For starters, there's the perpetual snubbing of Alfred Hitchcock and Martin Scorsese. Not like these two deserved any sort of recognition for, I don't know, the best films of their generations. This year Scorsese's "The Departed" stands to score big — as much on its merits as some kind of lifetime achievement consolation prize.
Scorsese snubs include "Ordinary People" beating out his "Raging Bull" for Best Picture of 1980 and the 1990 travesty of "Dances With Wolves" beating out "Goodfellas." The Academy is notorious for conservative tastes that lag behind cutting-edge cinema. If you throw in "Taxi Driver," Scorsese might have made the best film in each of the last three decades without receiving a single gold trophy.
But Scorsese has company in the undeserved loser's circle. Don't even get me started on "Forrest Gump" trumping "Pulp Fiction" and "The Shawshank Redemption" in 1994.
OK. You got me started. Forrest Freakin' Gump? Granted, I liked this movie when I first saw it. It was exceptionally well crafted, and I was even able to get past some of Tom Hanks' acting ticks to be truly moved by his performance as a sweet, forthright man of limited intellect. But if there has ever been a more cloyingly crass attempt to manipulate an audience without an actual theme or purpose, then I haven't seen it.
Seriously. What are we supposed to take away from this film? Stupid is as stupid does? America has gone through some tough and interesting times? War and AIDS are bad? Life is like a box of simple-minded folk spouting inane drivel?
Anyway, Gump might not be the worst offender among high crimes and Oscar snubs.
In 1941, "How Green Was My Valley" beat out "Citizen Kane." Any guess which one has better stood the test of time? In 1979, "Kramer Vs. Kramer" beat out "Apocalypse Now" and an unnominated "Manhattan." In 1983, "Terms of Endearment" defeated "The Right Stuff."
In 1992, Al Pacino won Best Actor for "Scent of a Woman." After years of playing plausible, layered human beings, he takes home the trophy for portraying some absurd blind curmudgeon who yells jarhead jargon while braying like a syphilitic gorilla. Hoo-ha!
In 2001, Ron Howard won Best Director and Best Film for "A Beautiful Mind," rewarding him for criminally tricking the audience with slick misdirection unworthy of even the worst M. Night Shyamalan offenses.
And last year, the Academy crowned "Crash" for portraying — with some excellent performances and clever editing — America's continuing struggle with racism through crashingly obvious setups.
All right, all right. Maybe I do care. Because sometimes arguing about movies and their Oscar hype can be just as fun as watching them.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I stopped listening to Bones' movie opinions after he insisted I see "The Thin Red Line." Talk about a crapfest...
You forgot a HUGE travesty:
What about that crap of a movie "Shakespeare In Love" beating out "Saving Private Ryan" for best picture.
And Titanic ??? I liked it despite it's sappyness, but wasn't L.A. Confidential a better overall picture? This one I don't have as much of a problem with as the one I listed above.
I sure hope I didn't "insist" on The Thin Red Line. The Thin Blue Line, perhaps (brilliant Errol Morris documentary that actually freed a man from death row).
Shakespeare in Love was probably the first real success of an Oscar campaign in winning an Oscar. The Weinsteins basically bought this one (similarly to how they bought a nomination for the forgetable "Chocolat").
But Shakespeare in Love is not the dreck you think it is. It helps to be familiar with Shakespeare and his plays to appreciate all of Tom Stoppards brilliant dialogue and plot twists. I'll agree it wasn't better than Pvt. Ryan, although Ryan was more of a groundbreaking opening sequence and a satisfying conclusion than a complete film. The middle was bogged down by a lot of Spielbergian Cheese, usually so delicious, but which didn't exactly match the tone of the rest.
Titanic was an amazingly satisfying film (especially when Jack freezes to death) -- a huuuuge spectacle that needed to be seen on a big screen. It's a technical masterpiece with a decent/contrived love story at the center. It was plenty good.
I like LA Confidential better, and watch it almost every time it's on TV. But as far as the history of the Academy, this race was a lot closer than those I mentioned.
I am still reeling from Crash beating out...four movies that did not involve heavy-handed meditations that resulted in nothing but bleedingly obvious conclusions.
I really like the headline of this column.
Also, why am I no longer listed as a contributor to this blog? Are you editorializing? I'm having bloggers block.
No idea why you're not listed as a contributor. The permissions settings still has you listed as a guest blogger. So you should still be able to post. Let me know if you can't.
And thanks for the headline. The best part of the whole thing.
Well, I know how much you cherish the chance to gripe, my dear Bonesy.
Have I mentioned how excited I am for the return of the good old-fashioned spy movie (Breach, not The Good Shepherd)? Take that, Academy!
Arielle - I think you need to upgrade to the "new Blogger" where you now use a Google password (or something like that).
I noticed one day that neither of us were listed as contributors, then once I upgraded my name appeared again.
Woohoo!
Oh T-Perl, you are so learn-ed.
That's "learn'd".
Big Chief's cents:
Shakespeare in Love was an extremely good movie. The only snub there was Joseph Fiennes not winning best actor. Of course, it would have helped had he been nominated in the first place. Bones, your comment about Private Ryan is dead on - an opening sequence that punches you in the gut and makes this generation realize what a bunch of privileged pansies we really are, but tired drama thereafter. Although I must say, Matt Damon's teeth look beautiful. Hypnotic, really. Not bad for a guy who's been in the trenches for several months.
I agree, Gump was pond scum.
L.A. Confidential was better than Titanic. In fact, it's one of the best movies of all time. But hard to knock the epic. 'Twas good as well.
Ordinary People was very good too. On second thought, I won't go there. I sense the wrath of my GMC coming...I'll at least agree with you that Scorcese should've won Best Director over Redford, handily.
Other snubs I can think of off the top of my head:
- Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs
- FF Coppola for The Godfather (no he didn't win believe it or not - Fosse did for Cabaret)
And I'll also add that if you're gonna bark about Hitchcock and Scorcese, I believe you've gotta add Kubrick to that list too. That guy deserved a little more love in his time.
- Dr. Strangelove
- Paths of Glory
- A Clockwork Orange
- 2001
- Barry Lyndon
- The Shining
- Full Metal Jacket
It don't get much better than that folks...weird dude, yes. But definitely amongst the best directors of all time. If he's not in your conversation, you're not worth conversing with.
Favorite Stanley Kubrick quote...
"Part of my problem is that I cannot dispel the myths that have somehow accumulated over the years. Somebody writes something, it's completely off the wall, but it gets filed and repeated until everyone believes it. For instance, I've read that I wear a football helmet in the car."
Post a Comment