Wed, January 26, 2005
Best Picture Nominees
This year, I predict Lord of the Rings will only win 7 Oscars.
Each year I tell myself that the Academy Awards have become entirely meaningless – appreciable only as a venue for my cool Oscar pool game – and that I'm going to stop paying attention, and stop caring about which films are nominated and which films win. And each year I still manage to be disappointed. The Oscars have joined the box office grosses as yet another inaccurate barometer of what a good movie is. (Each barometer is inaccurate in its own distinct way, but both are still correct only occasionally – by freak accident.)
I don't agree with a single one of this year's nominees for Best Motion Picture of the Year. I saw Sideways and I enjoyed Sideways very much, and I knew – since it was good and it was beloved by critics, and it had the added benefit of being "offbeat" – that it would earn a Best Picture nomination. And I was fine with that, as I still am. But I defy you to name four other movies which came out this year and are better than The Incredibles. I don't even bet you could name nine that came out in the last ten years and are better than The Incredibles.
God damn that Best Animated Feature category. When it was in the offing, the naysayers (nay)said that it would serve to block animated pictures from consideration for the Best Picture category. We wouldn't have another Beauty and the Beast. It seems that gloomy prognostication has come true. Not only did they give the inaugural BAF award to fucking Shrek, but now The Incredibles has been denied its rightful place at the top of the pile. It's way better than Beauty and the Beast. It's way better than The Aviator. And it's a hell of a lot better than Shrek 2, to which it will most likely lose the Animated Feature Oscar.
What's more, it's not even up for Best Art Direction, which I still contend (as I've done before on local TV) was the most outrageous snub the year The Iron Giant came out. These films look spectacular but nobody gives animated movies a fair shake in this area, because of some wrongheaded notion that if you don't build real sets and decorate them with real fabric from real Milan then it isn't real art direction.
It's some consolation that über-genius Brad Bird is up for a Best Screenplay award. (Thank God for Rex Pickett's unpublished Sideways novel – Bird wouldn't stand a chance in the same category as Alexander Payne with today's Oscar voters.) It's an uphill climb with Kaufman in the category – and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was very well written – but they've snubbed Kaufman before for greater works against lesser competition, so there's still hope. Brad Bird can definitely be my Sofia Coppola this year. I'm fine with that.
Anyway, enough bellyaching. Now it's time to face my grief head on – by rating the Best Picture nominees. (Keep two things in mind: I have only seen one of these films – not that I've ever allowed ignorance to prevent me from passing judgment before – and I'm not rating the movies themselves, only their worthiness as Best Picture nominees.)
The Aviator
With its sweeping vistas, super-rich colors (what is that, 20 ASA film stock?), and the Leo DiCaprio Serious Actor 4000 (tm), The Aviator was genetically engineered to win a Best Picture nomination and a Best Picture Golden Globe. Fortunately, that's it. I'm reasonably sure that it won't win the Oscar, and – given its laborious test-tube gestation, with constant tweaking, tinkering, and returning to the drawing board – I can understand that Scorsese managed to get another one past the Academy voters. If it looks like a Best Picture nominee, it just might be a Best Picture nominee. I'm not faulting anyone for nominating this one, but it certainly isn't one of the top five films this year. Not even the top ten.
Finding Neverland
I haven't seen this movie, but I admit that I've heard really fantastic things about it. Apparently, it's swimming in nominations. Fine by me, but its slot should've gone to I ♥ Huckabees. Truly the second-best film this year. Or, if that's too "out there" for the Academy, at the very least, it should go to the cozy, familiar eccentricity of Eternal Sunshine.
Million Dollar Baby
I haven't seen Mystic River, so my estimation of how horribly unwatchable it was is based on secondhand information. But I've seen enough of the droopy-faced, hard-luck Clint Eastwood films lately to realize that they're not necessarily as spellbinding as the trailer would have you believe. I like him, I like Hilary Swank, but there are plenty of better movies this year. If you want to nominate a character-based story about outgrowing one's usefulness and rediscovering one's humanity, nominate the far superior In Good Company.
Ray
I wanted to see this movie a lot, and I didn't manage to. To me, that means something. I'm proud of Jamie Foxx and I'm sure he does a tremendous job in it. I'm delighted to see Taylor Hackford getting some good attention, because he's had a bumpy ride for a while. But, God damn it, why does "dreamy-eyed biopic" always have to mean a free pass to Best Picturehood? (See The Aviator.) I really bristle when movies seem purposely constructed to garner showers of praise and adulation (See The English Patient. I mean, for God's sake, don't watch it – you know what I meant.) because other movies that just focus on being kickass-awesome (e.g., The Incredibles, for one) get left out. That's not fair. If you want to nominate a really compelling movie in which Jamie Foxx delivers a far more impressive performance than you would have expected, nominate Collateral.
Sideways
As I said, this is a fine film and deserves all the adulation it's getting. In the same way that Arrested Development is important for showing that you can do a good sitcom that is still well liked and critically acclaimed, Sideways is important for showing that you can make a good movie (and, more importantly, a good independent movie – in the sense that Fox Searchlight and the other studio-independents still count) that is still well liked and critically acclaimed. If for no other reason than that, it deserves to win the Oscar this year. Fortunately, the other reason is that it's far and away the best of these five films. It's just a shame that these aren't the best five films of the year. If you twisted my arm, though, I'd probably boot In Good Company or Eternal Sunshine to give Sideways a spot in my top five.
(Also, you don't say "Don't use the Academy Awards as a soapbox for political causes!" and then blatantly snub Fahrenheit 9/11 just because you don't agree with it. Fuckers.)
© onebee · all rights reserved
Joe Mulder — Wed, 1/26/05 9:48am
I read somewhere where "Fahrenheit 9/11" wasn't submitted in the Best Documentary category, so, if true, that would expain the "blatant snub."
Also, didn't "In Good Company" come out this year, not last year? I thought it opened in Aught 5 (I could be wrong).
Brandon — Wed, 1/26/05 10:23am
Yes, Michael Moore chose not to submit Fahrenheit 9/11 for Best Documentary with the hope that that would persuade/push the Academy to nominate it for Best Picture. And the Academy, as Bart Simpson once said, "saw through it like Grandma's underpants." And it appears they slapped his nose with a rolled-up newspaper. He gambled and lost.
According to IMDB, Good Company had a limited release on December 29, 2004.
And bashing not one but two Eastwood films you haven't seen? I think he's been doing fantastic work. Unforgiven is on my list of favorite movies, I think A Perfect World is one of the most underrated films of the last 20 years, and I thought Mystic River was very well-made. I'm looking forward to seeing Million Dollar Baby, though considering that I haven't seen a movie in the theater since summer and we rented Collateral 10 days ago and have yet to get a chance to actually watch it, "looking forward to seeing it" means I may get around to it in, ohhh, 2011.
Brandon — Wed, 1/26/05 10:25am
Yikes! Okay, I guessed wrong at the formatting you were using for movie titles, Jameson. Feel free to correct mine, because that's just obnoxiously ugly.
Bee Boy — Wed, 1/26/05 11:44am
Yeah, I'da thought In Good Company was an '05 movie, too, but I use the official AMPAS list of eligible releases when I come up with lists of films that are better deserving of nominations than the schlock they honor, so I know I'm in the right on this one.
I really loved A Perfect World, and I have fond memories of Unforgiven although the last time I saw that was – as Joe can tell you – on VHS in 1988. The point is, lately I don't think he's been as good and I think he's been too morose.
Maybe I'll like Mystic River better when I see it, but I'm inclined to doubt it. Blood Work was one of those where the studio seemed to be saying, "Be aware of this movie or not. We don't care; we're releasing it anyway!" Space Cowboys was a silly joke. Fun for novelty's sake, but hardly "fantastic work." True Crime was absolutely awful. Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil tried too hard to be quirky and ended up being blah; Absolute Power wasn't all that bad; The Bridges of Madison County was even worse than the book.
So, I'm going to go ahead and stand by my evaluation. In the last ten years, he hasn't made anything that's overwhelmed me, he's made two films I found okay, and one that I might like if I saw it, but I doubt it. M$B will keep its one star. Got a problem with that? Get your own website! (Just don't ask me for one right now – I'm already building two others for you.)
And, yeah, don't forget the formatting tips (link above the comment box). They are your friends.
Bee Boy — Wed, 1/26/05 11:50am
Oh, and Michael Moore "gambled and lost"? I say he gambled and won!
Think of it, he knew if he had to go up and make a speech there'd be more allegations of boos (or, possibly, this time, actual boos). Plus he might not even win, with Spurlock attempting to chip into his fat, irritating documentary filmmaker caché by getting fat in the movie.
This way, he gets legions of uninformed hippy-lefty maniacs like me using terms like "blatant snub" and "Fuckers!" Win-win, baby.
Brandon — Wed, 1/26/05 1:14pm
Okay, okay, maybe "fantastic" wasn't the best choice of words. How bout "interesting work." And even with Unforgiven, A Perfect World, Mystic River and M$B, that's four high-quality films in a twelve-year span; there aren't that many other directors that have had that many in the last twelve years.
Bee Boy — Wed, 1/26/05 3:37pm
Yeah, but over that period, he's 4-for-10. (3 if you don't count M$B, which you haven't even seen!) I think a 4-6 record over twelve years isn't that hard to beat.
Woody Allen: '71-'83 (7-3)
Bananas, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex, Sleeper, Love and Death, Annie Hall, Manhattan, Zelig
John Landis: '78-'90 (5-5)
Animal House, The Blues Brothers, An American Werewolf in London, Trading Places, ¡Three Amigos!
Albert Brooks: '85-'97 (3-0)
Lost in America, Defending Your Life, Mother (only three in twelve years, but he only made three – and they're all whoppers!)
Zemeckis: '85-'97 (6-1)
Back to the Future (plus II & III), Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Forrest Gump, and Contact
Tim Burton: '88-'94 (4-1 in half the time!)
Beetlejuice, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood
I could go on. (Spielberg, for example, went 9-2 from '81-'93.) The point is, for the guys I listed above, they easily bested 0.400 over a dozen years, or fewer, and all have faded from that glory period to some extent. In Brooks's case, it's just one film (The Muse), but that's 0-1 over nine years and it was really bad. In the case of Landis and Woody Allen, it's pretty much universally agreed that they've melted down (Blues Brothers 2000? Hollywood Ending?). Zemeckis and Tim Burton have fared somewhat better, keeping their heads above water, but fail to deliver the string of fantastic work they once did. I'm still looking forward to Melinda and Melinda and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; I haven't written these guys off, nor Eastwood either. I simply don't think what he's doing right now is Best Picture material, and I don't think that – on its own – the "four high-quality films in twelve years" argument is enough to put him up there without a better film.
Brandon — Wed, 1/26/05 4:34pm
Ahh, but see you didn't read what I said - not a twelve-year period, but four high-quality films in the LAST twelve years, where it seems to have become a lot harder to churn out great films. I don't think it's a coincidence that the directors you listed have all run into trouble during that time period.
I might also take issue with your interpretation of a "high-quality film" (Batman was pretty good, but high-quality?), but that's my own fault for putting too subjective a term out there.
Bee Boy — Wed, 1/26/05 4:42pm
Yeah, I had to go with my gut on "high-quality." If I felt like I was really out there in terms of subjectivity, I tried to go with films that people generally regarded as pretty awesome at the time. The only two where I really felt like my personal bias came into play, though, were Batman and Always. I called both in favor of high-quality: Batman because everyone knows it was awesome, and a big deal at the time; and Always because it's tremendously touching and I don't care what anyone says, I love it.
I was afraid there might be some significance to that "LAST twelve years" qualifier. I decided to skip it, because how fair is that – just adding conditions and still expecting me to come up with a well reasoned and snarky retort? You could've said "in the last twelve years and starring Clint Eastwood"! That's like when Warners was promoting See Spot Run as the "#1 Family Comedy Starring David Arquette and Someone from Armageddon, Running Between 89 and 100 Minutes in Length, and Released Later Than Valentine's Day!"
Brandon — Wed, 1/26/05 5:01pm
Yeah, but in the same vein, how fair is choosing any twelve-year period? I mean, of course you could find plenty of directors who did that. What, did I just start working here?
And I got no bones to pick with Always. I've got your back on that one.
"Holly" — Thu, 1/27/05 5:08pm
I ain't entering this twelve-year debate. I'm just here to say that not everyone loved The Incredibles. I thought it was average at best. And I'm getting very tired of films that are probably made by well-meaning liberal men but nonetheless end up passing off conflicted, uncomfortable messages about women as if they were good uplifting messages for the kiddies.
My overall take on the Oscars is that I'm simply going to replay last year's Oscars in my head from now on. Complete with the great company AND the Tolkien happiness.
Bee Boy — Thu, 1/27/05 7:57pm
That does sound fun, but you should still be here! How can we have the Oscar pool without you?? The whole thing will just feel wrong. Plus, Chris Rock! You've got to be with us for the first year Oscar truly capitulates to the lowest common denominator. In a few years, the show will be on Fox and this will all be a distant memory. Join us in counting how many times he says "Martin Scorsizzle"!
I wish I could enter the debate over responsible movie messages about women, but I know I'm way underqualified to even determine what that is. I thought Helen was pretty amazing – devoted mother, caring wife (but no pushover), and ass-kicking superhero. She fiercely defended her family, holding them together and keeping them afloat – sometimes literally. Sure, she was sad when she thought Bob might be cheating on her, but come on – I know a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, but you still care about the people you love. And she wasn't just a whiny crybaby; she blasted in there and did something about it! Maybe they could've put her in an office, earning more money than her husband, but not every movie can be Baby Boom. She was at home, but she was running the household, balancing the pressures of everyone's need to feel special against the constricting politics of the time, and trying her best to set an example for her husband. I'm proud of her.
And, I was proud of her in Always, too.
"Andy Mulder" — Fri, 1/28/05 10:24am
I'm Joe's brother, Andy. Thanks for the entertaining read. I didn't know people talked about movies besides, "any boobs in it?"
"Holly" — Fri, 1/28/05 11:27am
Sigh... here I was trying to bait you, in revenge for all the Lord of the Ring incidents last year, and you come up with a calm, open-minded response. ;-)
It's been a while since I actually saw the movie, so I can't give the kind of detailed, example-citing rundown that I ought to, but in general, I was just disappointed that her character was all about duty and responsibility to other people, and not much about HER. I agree that she was an upstanding wife and mother, and I further agree that there are few roles more heroic in real life or the movies than that of being a mom, but it just made me sad that what we saw reinforced the idea that it's the woman's job to take care of other people while being fairly self-effacing herself.
I also remember being troubled by the implications of the women's superpowers in the movie: the mom's superpower is that she is infinitely flexible and the daughter's is that she can disappear behind a magic shield. I dunno; I guess the metaphoric implications got on my nerves. While the men are charging around being strong and running fast and generally imposing themselves on the world, the women are busy being crushed or stretched into impossible shapes – or disappearing completely – in efforts to help the men. Women should always be flexible, always compromise, always efface themselves. Never mind their impossibly teeny-tiny waistlines.
We know that the husband wants excitement and to be fulfilled by rescuing people, and we know that the son wants to be a track star. I have no memory of what the wife or daughter's individual aspirations were.
I suppose you could make a solid case that the movie reinforced bad gender stereotypes in other directions, too, implying that men should be tough and strong at all times, and that a man who works in an office and gains weight is Bad.
The ending threw me off, too: I really really expected that the message of the movie would be that you don't NEED superpowers to be a great person. I thought they would all renounce their powers in the name of family, which is what really matters. Instead, the message I came away with was that, if you don't have superpowers, you sure are lame.
Which is kinda tough to live up to.
Anyway, just my thoughts. It was a very cool-looking movie and I'll give it to you if you'll give me Return of the King. ;-) I'll definitely be missing you all on Oscar night, regardless.
"AC" — Mon, 1/31/05 12:39pm
Considering "Million Dollar Baby"? Jameson's review proved to be shockingly prescient:
Indeed.