The Oscar hangover.
It happens every year. Just like Christmas, you wait and wait and wait for it. It happens, you have fun watching it, but then it's over and you realize you didn't get the one thing you really wanted. Then you wake up feeling a bit confused as to why you cared at all, and you just shrug it off and start thinking about next year.
In my morning round-up of reading various blogs and news outlets trash James Franco and call the King's Speech wins a horrific marker of how the Academy will just never get it, I'm seeing all the similar arguments I always see -- people who cared so deeply just 24 hours before are now armed with metaphorical torches, ready to slash and burn the Academy and its supposedly feeble attempts to stay relevant.
When Spielberg came out to announce Best Picture, he was quick to point out that while one film was going to receive an honor only 82 others had earned, the other nine would join the ranks of Citizen Kane, The Graduate and others. He didn't include Apocalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, Raging Bull, Reds, Dr. Strangelove or Network, but the point was all too clear: The Academy is really only "right" about half the time.
This is because they vote for "the moment." Sometimes the moment is just too big to ignore, like No Country for Old Men or Silence of the Lambs. Most of the time though, the moment is about the emotional impact of the immediate. That's why The Hurt Locker won. Yes, it's an amazing film, but its visceral depiction of Iraqi combat was a first, and it came at a time where many people feel very disillusioned about staying in Iraq (even though the film is wholly apolitical, the relative newness of the Obama regime and his desire to get troops out of Iraq no doubt played into the film's dominance. I think that's inarguable). Even in that lineup, I think Inglourious Basterds will have just as good if not a better shelf life.
The King's Speech is a film for "the moment." The Social Network is *about* the moment, but The King's Speech is just too delightful. I know, that's a silly thing to say, but anyone who's seen the film knows what I'm talking about. Social Network, Black Swan, Inception, True Grit -- these films cater to different kinds of audiences, and ten years from now each of them will have more esteem than Speech. But that's because they're not Academy fare, and we can't trick ourselves into believing the Academy is something it isn't. They love emotion, they love prestige projects, they love rousing stories.
I want to make one thing very, very clear: I think The King's Speech is a perfectly good choice for the Best Picture trophy. Part of the reason is because I know Social Network's legacy is intact without an Oscar. Another part is that it's just a great movie. It is. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Tom Hooper, and the saddest part about this whole thing is that he and his film will now be the fall guy for Social Network and Inception fans (the most rabid fanbases of the nominees). King's Speech is actually tremendously well-made, as the clips they showed last night only reminded me. The way Hooper thinks about images and editing, the way he's all about decentralizing the composition and making his own kind of jump-cutting out of wildly varying compositions is great filmmaking. It's a great film stuck in a year of even greater films.
I wrote earlier this month that this was like 1941 all over again. The arguably more challenging, more innovative, "more important" and "more superior" film (The Social Network) won Screenplay (and two others - let's not forget), while the more emotionally satisfying, "more conventional" film waltzed off with Picture and Director. In 1941, How Green Was My Valley trounced Citizen Kane in much the same way. Now we just have to sit back and watch as the ire of passionate moviegoers descends on The King's Speech for beating The Social Network. I implore those of you who love Social Network or Inception or any of the other films, don't let this happen. See The King's Speech, and see it for what it is. Don't think about it as "the film that beat The Social Network." Think about it as the arrival of one of Britain's best new directing talents.
I do, however, take most issue with that Best Directing trophy. I think Tom Hooper is going to do great things, but I also feel like David Fincher will forever be an Oscars outsider (at least for another decade). He'll be our new Hitchcock and Kubrick (in terms of always a bridesmaid, never a bride). Which I don't think he should concern himself with. He knows his films are great, and he knows his legacy is made. And I don't think he will. He'll go back to work on The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and this Christmas we'll get something spectacular out of him yet again. And one of these days, the Academy will get over their weird bias towards Christopher Nolan and show the man some love.
So, who cares about the Oscars? I think it's a valid question, especially now that it's over and many of us have likely resigned to the annual haze of apathy about the whole thing. Every year I think there is a reason to care, and these reasons should be judged separately from the organization as a whole, which was founded to help preserve, mark and encourage the evolution of the industry. Every year has its own story, like Natalie Portman finally emerging as the amazing, uncompromising talent many expected her to be in 1994 when she was in The Professional, or Christian Bale's unflinching, transformative series of acting performances finally getting him the recognition he deserves.
Consider this: The King's Speech is an independent film made in part from a donation from the UK Film Council. The Council was a government agency that received its money from the national lottery. Last November, it was dissolved. With all the success Speech has received, it's hard to remember it's actually an independent film (and so marks the fourth year in a row where an independent film has won Best Picture). As someone who knows many aspiring filmmakers and artists who rely on these kinds of funds and organizations to ensure that they can actually get work and share their vision, the loss of this form of government funding is a real blow.
BBC News had a story on it this morning: "The irony is that The King's Speech - whose current worldwide takings exceed $245m - will be widely viewed as a vindication of public arts funding." While the "film funding arm" of the Film Council will still be incorporated into the British Film Institute, now the country's chief government agency regarding film, the Oscars have sent a message.
Rewarding The King's Speech isn't just about standing up and cheering for the emotional, more conventional film. It's about letting filmmakers know that public funding can work, and that governments need to support the arts. That's an important think to consider for places like South Carolina, where this blog is based, and where the current governor is considering eliminating the government Arts Commission.
The Oscars may just be about the industry patting itself on the back, but it's also about how the industry chooses to project itself. It's not just a silly, insular ceremony. Their choices have meaning, and while sometimes those choices send the wrong message and hurt the perception of the industry (Crash over Brokeback, anyone?), they very often help. The Academy's recent embrace of independently-funded films, and especially their embrace of Speech as a film made possible by government subsidy, gives me hope that we can see this as a sign of hope that public arts aren't dying.
No comments:
Post a Comment