"Awards were made in Hollywood........ They're to promote each other's movies. You give me an award, I give you an award and people will believe that we are in great movies and they'll go to see them. It's still the same." (Javier Bardem [of No Country for Old Men fame])
A herd of pampered, plucked and prominent celebrities from the world of Hollywood shuffle down the red carpet, which flows perpetually from the doors of the Kodak Theatre. Flash bulbs sear the retinas, whilst journalistic jackals wait to feast on the mundanely modest words of the now-blinded nominees. Soaked in designer colognes and draped in the latest trends, the narcissistic, yet anxious, herd are ushered into the grandiose Hollywood temple to worship at the altar of mainstream cinema. Their eyes slowly regain focus after the onslaught of flash photography, but eventually fill with tears as many will leave without the gold statue nestling within their excessively manicured hands.
You've guessed it folks, the 83rd Academy Awards has reared it's ugly head once more. As you have probably garnered from my opening paragraph this ceremony is one which I wait for with a sense of impending doom and greet with an intense loathing. This "impending doom" is partially offset every year with ill-placed optimism as I pray the Academy can get it right. Alas, this is never the case and, always one for showing a fine display of form, the Academy has unwittingly done the unthinkable again. However, I"m sure my diatribe will become crystal clear by the time I have attempted to dissect each category and their respective victors. In order to create an escalating atmosphere of tension, I will start at the opening category, eventually worming my way towards the inevitable anticlimax which is commonly known as "Best Film." Some analyses will be much shorter than others, with a large amount being omitted from the article altogether, and I invite readers to comment if they want a more detailed opinion on certain categories. To wrap this up, I will quickly summarise the awards show.
The first category is........
BEST MAKE UP (WINNER: Rick Baker and Dave Elsey for "The Wolfman")
Well this is certainly one film which will proudly emblazon the oscar statue on the cover of it's inevitable "collector's edition" DVD release. This being due to the indisputable fact that Universal Pictures will try to deceive the general public into believing its a good film. Arguably one the worst films to hit cinemas with an extremely grotesque and hairy thud last year. Luckily Benicio Del Toro, most likely embarrassed for accepting a cheque for this monstrosity, could hide behind some incredible prosthetic make up produced by the talented Rick Baker. Baker has worked on many films in the past including An American Werewolf in London, The Exorcist and was also behind Michael Jackson's metamorphosis in the extended music video for Thriller. All-in-all a much deserved gong for the veteran make-up artist!
BEST EDITING (WINNER: THE SOCIAL NETWORK)
The first award of the night for, in my opinion, the film of the year. With works such as Fight Club and Seven, David Fincher and his production team have proven that editing is one of the most powerful tools in a filmmaker's arsenal. Some would argue that it would have taken a miracle to edit a somewhat mundane procedural episode into a thrilling and exciting piece of contemporary drama. However, with a mixture of fast-paced scene transitions, fluid camerawork and drawn-out shots, Fincher has ensured that The Social Network will go down as a stellar example of modern film editing.
BEST SOUND MIXING, BEST SOUND EDITING, BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY AND BEST VISUAL EFFECTS (WINNER: INCEPTION)
A large majority of the British press has been quick to demand that the average British film-goer should be proud of the platitudes and accolades being thrown at The King's Speech. Maybe...... but the real advances in British cinema this year lie with a quiet and modest Englishman by the name of Christopher Nolan. The team behind this years mind-twisting blockbuster Inception deserve all of the praise fired its way, with Nolan himself demonstrating, yet again, his superior technical prowess in making intelligent and thought-provoking works of art. To be given these three awards and not even receive a nomination for best director is a travesty. It's clearly indicative of the Academy's supreme ignorance and shocking inability to vote for directors, who are clearly future cinematic hall-of-famers. Sadly it happens all too often at the Oscars and is due to what I like to call Scorcese Syndrome. However, I will delve into this mind-boggling phenomenon later on when I discuss the so-called "Best Director" category.
BEST SCORE (WINNER: Trent Reznor and and Atticus Ross for "The Social Network")
Do not think this was in any doubt for one iota. Trent Reznor, from the famous metal band Nine Inch Nails, has managed to compose a fantastic accompaniment to Fincher's film on the social ineptitude of a social media mogul. Haunting, hypnotic, understated and exuberant all in equal measure, The Social Network's musical score melds classical with contemporary, without feeling in any way contrived. Fantastic score and the second gong of the evening for Film A La Facebook.
BEST ANIMATED FILM (WINNER: TOY STORY 3)
No contest. What a wonderfully crafted and endearing trilogy. Toy Story has captured the hearts of a generation of filmgoers. I've never felt such a strong sense of empathy towards a group of animated characters, to the extent whereby I feel like I've shared in these toys' experiences and grown up with them. Pixar have so effortlessly wrapped humour, storytelling and morality lessons into one that these films have engaged children and adults alike. To some extent, its a shame Toy Story will never receive an Oscar for "Best Film" as these are the sorts of stories which will transcend generations and remain timeless. Simply put, storytelling at its most powerful.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY (WINNER: Aaron Sorkin for "The Social Network")
Unquestionably one of the best scripts to slide into a studio producer's in tray in recent memory. The architect of hit-US drama The West Wing, has displayed his staggering ability to morph an electric and energetic dialogue from what some perceive to be a relatively dull courtroom procedural. Sorkin allowed the audience to be transported into the world of Mark Zuckerburg and witness his ascension to the summit of contemporary social networking. His ingenious screenplay seemlessly weaved multiple narratives into a taught and fast-paced two hour drama.
Sorkin addressed The Facebook's genesis, the financial success for Zuckerburg and the irrepairable damage to the relationships with some of his closest allies. A large majority of critics before the film's release were sceptical and thought Fincher and Sorkin would tell a tale about the intricacies of Facebook. However, the subtle power of Sorkin's script is revealed in knowing that this film is not about Facebook. It tells a story of loyalty, betrayal, friendship, success and failure. With that preceeding sentence some of you would not be wrong for assuming it sounds like a modern Shakespearean tragedy. Need I say more to soak this screenplay in praise: No, but for those of you who have not watched this absorbing tale I implore you to add The Social Network as a friend.
AND THE WINNERS FOR EACH ACTING CATEGORY ARE..........
Oscar Recipients 2011. From left: Christian Bale (supporting), Natalie Portman, Melissa Leo (supporting) & Colin Firth.
No significant qualms here to be perfectly honest. Each Oscar winner certainly demonstrated a supreme level of commitment in preparation for their respective performances. Bale decided yet again to lose a considerable amount of weight for his portrayal of Dicky Eklund in David. O. Russell's boxing biopic The Fighter. The Welsh-born thesp has clearly swallowed the work of the late Constantin Stanislavski in preparing for many of his films, demonstrating that method acting is certainly not a dying art. Not since Robert De Niros early days in films such as Taxi Driver and Raging Bull have I seen such a high level of commitment.
Sadly I can't really comment on Melissa Leo's performance as I have yet to see The Fighter and don't really know of any other notable films she has been in (aside from 21 Grams). However, I did find it disappointing that Haliee Steinfeld did not receive an Academy nod for her portrayal of Mattie Ross in True Grit. Most probably, the Academy didn't feel it proper to award an Oscar to a fourteen year old girl. For an in-depth analysis of Haliee's performance refer to my previous review on the Coen Brothers' Western epic.
Natalie Portman and Colin Firth won in the leading actor categories....... I don't believe any one was suffering any delusions in thinking anyone else would pull a surprise. Two spectacular performances!
BEST FILM (WINNER: THE KING'S SPEECH)
Theatrical Poster for "The King's Speech"
*AUDIBLE GROWN*....... Personally, this is where the evening fell flat on its vigorously polished, lifeless, golden face. British critics seemed to have been swept up in a hysterical euphoria in recent months, spouting hollow nonsense such as "a film that made me proud to be British" and "a cinematic revelation." I will be completely blunt, I bemoan this sort of drivel. To be completely cynical, critics blurt out these quotations to ensure their name stands proud (no pun intended) on a particular film's poster.
However, let me get this out of the way first: The King's Speech is a good film with cracking performances, good cinematography, accurate costume design and an uplifting score. Furthermore, it is a great "feelgood" film. To reiterate, a good film and a great "feelgood" film. If there were, and probably there will be given the Academy's track record, an Oscar for "Best Feelgood Film" The King's Speech would have unquestionably taken home the bacon. Unfortunately, the category is for "Best Film" and this is where the crux of my frustration lies.
For the Academy, The King's Speech ticks all the boxes: Character overcomes adversity, CHECK. Characters form unbreakable bonds through a time of hardship, CHECK. Rousing speeches with thunderous accompanying scores, CHECK. Punters walk out of the cinema with tears of joy, CHECK. A film about the British Sovereignty, CHECK. Leading man who should have been given an Oscar for a far more gripping performance in the past, CHECK. It saddens me to say that this year a "crowd pleaser" has won the Oscar.
Films do not have to be loved by all to be truly great. I could reel off countless films, which have been snubbed by the Academy in the past but thoroughly deserved the title of "Best Film." A select few are Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Dark Knight, The Machinist, Fight Club, Seven, Pulp Fiction, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey. However the two most shocking Academy snubs are most definitely The Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane: Two films, which consistently occupy the top two slots in countless Greatest 100 Films polls.
The worthy winner this year was unquestionably The Social Network. A fine piece of modern filmmaking, with a contemporary backdrop and traditional story at its core. I won't babble on about this any longer but what I will say is I believe this is a troubling development for British filmmakers. This award has so flagrantly displayed how Hollywood consistently leaps upon British films with traditional stereotypes and old-fashioned social elephants.
If you want to be filled with a sense of pride for stellar British films over the past year, seek out gems such as Neds, Made in Dagenham, 127 Hours, Inception and Four Lions. By purchasing these DVDs or Blu Rays you will most certainly keep the British film industry alive and allow independent filmmakers to effortlessly paint their chosen canvasses in the future.
BEST DIRECTOR (WINNER: Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech)
An absolute travesty...... I am not attempting to detract from what Hooper achieved by taking a small entity and converting it into a global hit but you do not just need a director to do such a thing. Sadly external factors, such as producers and investment are what make small films into gargantuan ones. The direction was competent but by no means stellar.
The oversight of Christopher Nolan is what poisoned this category before the Oscars even aired. Excuse my French, but how in the Hell can a film win in every technical category and not even have it's director nominated??!!! Here is a prime example of "Scorcese syndrome." Essentially this simply means that certain cinematic geniuses never seem to receive Oscars for works of art. It happened to Scorcese and it also happened to Alfred Hitchcock. I fear this may also be the case for David Fincher and Christopher Nolan. It is actually an abomination and I'm not going to waste my breath trying to criticise the Academy when I think the preceding sentence speaks for itself. Utterly pathetic...
And thats a wrap........
With statues engraved and self-congratulation all but passed for another year, the 83rd Academy Awards has reluctantly stepped back behind the red curtain. Personally, I'm glad. With every passing Oscar ceremony, I feel I'm becoming more disconnected from the fortified film establishment. This may be a phase or a slow realisation that there is more to cinema than critically acclaimed "masterpieces"and box office juggernauts. Even films which are classed as "independents" by the Academy are not. Do not get sucked into this misleading illusion. Although The King's Speech was considered "independent" it was a production fortunate enough to receive a large grant from the Lottery fund. To me, to warrant the label of cinematic independence, films have to be released on a shoestring budget; being produced and distributed by small, unknown studios.
I suppose this last point falls in quite nicely with my recommendation. I've been lucky enough to live in a city where there are ample opportunities to watch independent films, which are revolutionising the industry. Rather than be blinded by the flash bulbs of the Academy and waltz into cinemas accepting Hollywoods distorted view, I implore you to go to the Cornerhouse in Manchester. There you will lose yourself completely in films, which exist solely to enchant and excite you , rather than to simply please a select number of Academy voters.
The power of cinema lies in it's ability to transport filmgoers into another world and allows them to escape from reality for a few, short hours. Film should never be about ticking review board's boxes. So prove Javier Bardem wrong and let's hope that opening quote will not be indicative of a future film industry.
However, let me get this out of the way first: The King's Speech is a good film with cracking performances, good cinematography, accurate costume design and an uplifting score. Furthermore, it is a great "feelgood" film. To reiterate, a good film and a great "feelgood" film. If there were, and probably there will be given the Academy's track record, an Oscar for "Best Feelgood Film" The King's Speech would have unquestionably taken home the bacon. Unfortunately, the category is for "Best Film" and this is where the crux of my frustration lies.
For the Academy, The King's Speech ticks all the boxes: Character overcomes adversity, CHECK. Characters form unbreakable bonds through a time of hardship, CHECK. Rousing speeches with thunderous accompanying scores, CHECK. Punters walk out of the cinema with tears of joy, CHECK. A film about the British Sovereignty, CHECK. Leading man who should have been given an Oscar for a far more gripping performance in the past, CHECK. It saddens me to say that this year a "crowd pleaser" has won the Oscar.
Films do not have to be loved by all to be truly great. I could reel off countless films, which have been snubbed by the Academy in the past but thoroughly deserved the title of "Best Film." A select few are Goodfellas, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, The Dark Knight, The Machinist, Fight Club, Seven, Pulp Fiction, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey. However the two most shocking Academy snubs are most definitely The Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane: Two films, which consistently occupy the top two slots in countless Greatest 100 Films polls.
The worthy winner this year was unquestionably The Social Network. A fine piece of modern filmmaking, with a contemporary backdrop and traditional story at its core. I won't babble on about this any longer but what I will say is I believe this is a troubling development for British filmmakers. This award has so flagrantly displayed how Hollywood consistently leaps upon British films with traditional stereotypes and old-fashioned social elephants.
If you want to be filled with a sense of pride for stellar British films over the past year, seek out gems such as Neds, Made in Dagenham, 127 Hours, Inception and Four Lions. By purchasing these DVDs or Blu Rays you will most certainly keep the British film industry alive and allow independent filmmakers to effortlessly paint their chosen canvasses in the future.
BEST DIRECTOR (WINNER: Tom Hooper for "The King's Speech)
An absolute travesty...... I am not attempting to detract from what Hooper achieved by taking a small entity and converting it into a global hit but you do not just need a director to do such a thing. Sadly external factors, such as producers and investment are what make small films into gargantuan ones. The direction was competent but by no means stellar.
The oversight of Christopher Nolan is what poisoned this category before the Oscars even aired. Excuse my French, but how in the Hell can a film win in every technical category and not even have it's director nominated??!!! Here is a prime example of "Scorcese syndrome." Essentially this simply means that certain cinematic geniuses never seem to receive Oscars for works of art. It happened to Scorcese and it also happened to Alfred Hitchcock. I fear this may also be the case for David Fincher and Christopher Nolan. It is actually an abomination and I'm not going to waste my breath trying to criticise the Academy when I think the preceding sentence speaks for itself. Utterly pathetic...
And thats a wrap........
With statues engraved and self-congratulation all but passed for another year, the 83rd Academy Awards has reluctantly stepped back behind the red curtain. Personally, I'm glad. With every passing Oscar ceremony, I feel I'm becoming more disconnected from the fortified film establishment. This may be a phase or a slow realisation that there is more to cinema than critically acclaimed "masterpieces"and box office juggernauts. Even films which are classed as "independents" by the Academy are not. Do not get sucked into this misleading illusion. Although The King's Speech was considered "independent" it was a production fortunate enough to receive a large grant from the Lottery fund. To me, to warrant the label of cinematic independence, films have to be released on a shoestring budget; being produced and distributed by small, unknown studios.
I suppose this last point falls in quite nicely with my recommendation. I've been lucky enough to live in a city where there are ample opportunities to watch independent films, which are revolutionising the industry. Rather than be blinded by the flash bulbs of the Academy and waltz into cinemas accepting Hollywoods distorted view, I implore you to go to the Cornerhouse in Manchester. There you will lose yourself completely in films, which exist solely to enchant and excite you , rather than to simply please a select number of Academy voters.
The power of cinema lies in it's ability to transport filmgoers into another world and allows them to escape from reality for a few, short hours. Film should never be about ticking review board's boxes. So prove Javier Bardem wrong and let's hope that opening quote will not be indicative of a future film industry.
No comments:
Post a Comment