www.onebee.com

Web standards alert

Account: log in (or sign up)
onebee Writing Photos Reviews About

Best Picture Math

When the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced last year that they would be doubling the size of this year's Best Picture nomination pool to ten, it was pretty much universally dismissed as a terrible idea. Then Joe – as he typically does – took a deeper look, and proved that argument has absolutely no merit. You can't devalue the already meaningless Best Picture Oscar, and anyone who complains about the length of the show is just being a dick – if you're not watching the awards in a room full of friends, cracking jokes, betting money, and having fun, then you might as well at least be fast-forwarding it on TiVo... in either case, why the hell should you care how long it is?

But I still thought having ten Best Picture nominees was a dumb idea, especially when I saw which ten we were dealing with. I mean, what a ragtag bunch of misfits these are!

Avatar – I'm not sorry I saw it, but after watching Jim Cameron seize directing honors and Best Picture (non-pretend-comedy-category) at the Golden Globes, I started seriously freaking out that it would win an Oscar for Best Picture. It doesn't come anywhere near deserving that.

The Blind Side – Nominated for two Oscars, including Best Picture! A perfectly charming movie, and I'm as pleased as anyone to see Sandra Bullock getting a little actual acting recognition (probably more so), but this is the sort of thing people were talking about when they talked about devaluing the already valueless Best Picture award.

District 9 – I look forward to seeing it although I am thoroughly convinced it is not my kind of movie and I will come away from the experience pretty bewildered, even if I am impressed by the effects work. (Kind of like Avatar, except the effects work is a lot more economical and the dialogue is a lot less laughable.)

An Education – I have heard excellent things, especially about Carey Mulligan's performance. I have never been disappointed by a Nick Hornby movie (though I have never attended a Jimmy Fallon movie). But I haven't rushed out to see this one. Someday.

The Hurt Locker – I had no major problems with this film, which came in at #9 on my 2009 list so far. It was very captivating with impressive performances and nice work all around. Of all the movies that were foretold Best Picture frontrunners months and months ago, it is among the most deserving.

Inglourious Basterds – I haven't seen this movie and never will.

Precious – See above (although at least it does not offend me merely by existing; it simply doesn't interest me). When Broadway musicals are adapted for the screen, I am irritated if they tack on an extra song or two in order to get Best Original Song nominations for their songwriters, because it seems like a hacky play for attention. Similarly, I dislike this film's full title, Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire, because it seems like an unnecessary play to keep the title and author front and center. Most adaptations don't do that; Adaptation didn't do that. Why not call the movie "Push" if the book was such a big deal? I don't understand. With six nominations and an overcrowded Best Picture field, I am considering breaking my longstanding rule and shortening this film's title on the onebee Oscar pool ballot this year.

A Serious Man – I haven't seen it, but I look forward to it, even though I doubt it will make very much sense to me.

Up – Too little, too late, Academy! WALL-E had a real, interesting shot at Best Picture last year (had it only been nominated), but Up, while touching and enjoyable, has the least staying power of Pixar's recent output, and makes a terrible trailblazer into Best Picture territory. (A phalanx of talking dogs will do that to a movie.) Given the current Oscar voting climate, there was precious little chance that Up – or even WALL-E – could've walked home with Best Picture gold in a field of five, but with this fractured, ten-way clusterfuck? It's not even worth thinking about.

Up in the Air – You won't get me to say anything bad about George Clooney, even if the movie he decided to be in did fizzle a little towards the end. (Just a little.) Still, in a year like 2009, a fine Best Picture contender.

But I'm warming to the ten-nominees idea, because with this many different kinds of movies up for the honor, each is going to have its own little pocket of voters, and hopefully they'll split the usual horde of pack-mentality votes that blindly herd in the direction of the inevitable winner, which might erode enough support out from under Avatar to pluck at least one statuette away from James Cameron at the end of the night. Not that I hold out much hope of this happening, but it would be a glorious thing, because while I applaud many of his achievements with Avatar, it is not Best Picture material (not even part of the way there, like Titanic was) – and, more importantly, it would be nice to have a fucking surprise at the end of the show for a change. I say this not as an Academy Awards viewer, but as the steward of the world's most magnificent Oscar pool – I'm talking about stuff that matters!

Although, if you're going to go ahead and open the Best Picture category up wide enough that something like The Blind Side fits into it, why not a movie with actual broad appeal, like The Hangover? Obviously it won't win the Oscar, but the same could be said about six or seven of these movies, too. I wouldn't have voted for it, but considering members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association did, it makes a fairly solid case for including it in your list of nominations.

By the way, if you're wondering which ten films I would've nominated, they are as follows:

In the Loop – Based on Armando Iannucci's BBC series The Thick of It (which, anytime you want to release on DVD stateside, BBC, I'm ready!), it's a rollicking, improv-heavy romp through international bureaucratic red tape as two world superpowers barrel toward a completely unnecessary war in the Middle East. Hawks and doves battle it out in the ranks of middle management, and the film spares no opportunity to skewer them both expertly.

Duplicity – Taut espionage intrigue with sly twists and plenty of sexual tension between Clive Owen and Julia Roberts – I sort of wanted to call it Grandpa and Grandma Smith. I don't mean they're ancient compared to Pitt and Jolie – they're not, except in "movie years" – but they represent a staid alternative to the Pitt/Jolie tabloid frenzy, with their jet-setting and their feuds and their adoptees and ever-increasing tattoo coverage.

I Love You, Man – Maybe you didn't laugh as hard as you laughed at The Hangover, but you laughed healthier. There really weren't enough Paul Rudd movies this year. (Where "enough" would have been "all of them.")

Up in the Air – As I said before, but also: really strong performances by Vera Farmiga (always incredible) and Anna Kendrick, who really should just remain in character, because she's adorable as hell in the movie but she looks very creepy in red carpet dresses. Show up at the Oscars in a hoodie, Anna, and win my eternal respect!

Up – Hey, Pixar with an unfortunate preponderance of talking dog material is still Pixar.

The International – I think if you put Clive Owen and Paul Rudd in the same movie, I might have to wear rubber underpants to that movie! This isn't that movie, but I loved it anyway, because it had the sedate, thoughtful plotting of a 1970s thriller without the "absolutely nothing happening" that so many of those films seemed to share. I had hoped it would make a bigger splash so we'd see more movies like it.

The Hangover – Solidly entertaining R-rated comedy, with room for the overlooked humor of one Zach Galifianakis. Yes, please.

9 – Not perfect, but a really interesting extension of animation into a genre story with a post-apocalyptic bent. Worth rewarding.

Coraline – Somewhat like Avatar, spent a little too much time reveling in its own special fantasy world while not that much in particular happened. Completely unlike Avatar, the characters and story were interesting during the rest of the time (which was much, much less than three hours). Really beautiful and imaginative, with stunning, intricate animation work.

In the meantime, the glorious onebee Oscar Pool is already underway. Get your picks in, organize a party, and give some actual meaning to this whole ridiculous exercise, why don't you?

3 Comments (Add your comments)

ACTue, 2/2/10 9:45pm

I think Precious was one of those pics that would have been fun if we'd seen it together. It was a terrible movie, but I loved Mo'Nique and all I could think about after it ended was "Get yo' fuckin' ass down to the welfare, bitch!" Or something like that.

I was most pleased that The White Ribbon got a nod for cinematography– it would be wonderful if it ended up beating Avatar.

Joe MulderWed, 2/3/10 1:10am

I dislike this film's full title, Precious: Based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire, because it seems like an unnecessary play to keep the title and author front and center. Most adaptations don't do that; Adaptation didn't do that. Why not call the movie "Push" if the book was such a big deal?

I think because this movie came out a few months before. And, in certain circles, I suspect that the novel "Push" by "Sapphire" (if someone is going to call themselves that, and only that, I'm going to put quote marks around it) was well known enough to where it behooved the filmmakers to make sure people knew this movie was based on that book.

So I'll give them a pass on that one. Also, THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING and MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD a few years ago broke the unwritten (and entirely sensible) rule that movies with colons in the title can't be nominated for Best Picture.

So there's that.

Bee BoyWed, 2/3/10 9:45am

Good call on the movie Push; I knew there was something I didn't understand. Although, if you have the film rights to the novel Push (by "Sapphire," let's not forget!) it seems like you'd get first refusal on that title. I remember Disney had to give Warners all kinds of concessions to use A Bug's Life, just because WB had a well-known character named Bugs (no apostrophe, you'll notice), with no planned movie about his life or anything. Maybe it's the "by 'Sapphire'" part that bothers me (overkill), or the fact that this could've been included in the marketing and posters but still left off the official title so it wouldn't be on my ballot.

As Anthony Lane put it in his New Yorker review:

Deborah Kerr didn’t star in "The Innocents: Based on the Novella 'The Turn of the Screw' by Henry James," and Dustin Hoffman didn’t star in "Rain Man: Based on the Overwhelming Desire to Win an Academy Award by Dustin Hoffman," so why the change in rubric?

If the book were an autobiography, I could see it: look at where "Sapphire" came from, unable to read or write, and now she's written her whole story. But since it's a novel, I kind of think it's time for "Sapphire" to step aside and let Precious shine. (Though I'll happily admit that none of this would bother me if it weren't fucking up my Oscar ballot.)

Your Comments
Name: OR Log in / Register to comment
e-mail:

Comments: (show/hide formatting tips)

send me e-mail when new comments are posted

onebee