On 1941

For film buffs, it's one of the most legendary Academy blunders of all time, a decision that has only gotten worse as history has gone on, the moment we all point to as undeniable evidence that AMPAS has never really had any idea what they're doing in terms of "the big picture."

How Green Was My Valley beat Citizen Kane for Best Picture at the ceremony for 1941, netting John Ford his third Oscar (his second in as many years). Orson Welles did walk away with a win -- he and Joseph L. Mankiewicz shared the Best Screenplay Oscar. It was the film's only win (it had nine nominations). How Green Was My Valley, a small and pretty good movie, won five.

For the film scholars who would later declare (and still declare) Citizen Kane the finest motion picture ever made, it become an instance where the Academy could not, would not see it for its innovation. They were too narrow-sighted; they voted with their hearts because they loved John Ford and Valley was a nice, character-driven drama that didn't ask too much and was a good watch.


"1941" has happened over and over -- Rocky beat Network, Ordinary People beat Raging Bull, Dances With Wolves beat GoodFellas, Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan -- all instances where the "happier," more conventional film has outshone the tougher, arguably more artistic and forward-thinking film. Despite the last few years of rewarding several tough films, the Academy knows what its prom queen should look like. No Country for Old Men is the only pure anomaly from the last several years, a movie whose win still baffles in the best way, the only time the Academy has honored a genuinely unique and tough film (The Departed was about crowning Marty; The Hurt Locker was about a number of things, but it recognized traditional filmmaking over innovation) since 1999 (I still say American Beauty is a genuinely bleak film and complex movie).

We're back in 1941. The Social Network is Citizen Kane for the digital era. No, it's not as good as Citizen Kane; I'm not trying to be that bold. The similarities are just uncanny -- a greedy, unlikable genius seizes the technology of his moment to change the world for forever, leaving in his wake a trail of fuming friends and enemies who tell his story for us (remember, Zuckerberg never tells his side until the very end. And even then, it's all very cryptic and devastating). Where Kane was about experimenting with new deep focus lenses and intense lighting patterns, Network is about experimenting with digital cameras that let natural lighting do absurd things and let the focal plane open up all the way, putting only an inch or two of the frame in focus. From a technical standpoint, both films are/were trying to be hugely innovative (even in their score and sound mixing).

The Social Network now competes against The King's Speech, a movie that's kind of like How Green Was My Valley in that you just can't hate it. Even people who are violently rabid fans of Network seem to acknowledge that Speech is just downright likable, and the Oscars are all about likability. And trust me, I'll have plenty to say about how these two films are actually bizarre mirrors of each other over the coming two weeks. Think about it: Two best friends unravel over the implementation and expansion over a new technology that lets them connect people in unforeseen ways .... and two polar opposites become close friends as one tries to help the other use an emerging technology to conquer his inner fears and unite his people in a way he didn't think possible. Yeah, they're sort of similar.

It's "mind" vs. "heart," "cynical" vs. "uplifting," "traditional" vs. "innovative," it's an Oscar race that is now about almost any kind of binarism you can conjure. That's not to diss The King's Speech at all. Like I said, it's a strong movie for all the above reasons. It's still the polar opposite of The Social Network, which is why it's so fascinating that this year has come down to this.

David Fincher is a tough, obsessive director. Tom Hooper is a unique storytelling voice. Jesse Eisenberg and Colin Firth both dig deep into the compulsions and nuances of their characters. Both screenwriters are fascinating characters. They're competing against each other in many of the same categories (Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Score, Actor, Director, Picture).

Once again, it's 1941. It's 1976. It's 1980. It's 1998. It's 2001. It's time for the Academy to, almost right on cue, stand up and say, "we want movies that make us feel good. We want prestige pictures, we want likable characters, we want people overcoming odds to succeed in the end." Same tune, different decade.

Or is it? Is this really a new Academy? Do they really skew younger? Were the victories for No Country, Slumdog and Hurt Locker really emblematic of a new moment in recognizing different kinds of visions? Is this The Social Network's time?