Luke
stu-kicks
CibbuanoThe 2010 Oscars - Thoughts
March 9th 2010 02:37
BEST FILM
The emergence of the blogosphere (and the internet in general) had seen an increasingly vocal backlash to the predictability of the Oscar Best Film nominees in recent years. Partially in reaction to the disparaging term 'Oscar-bait', the Academy decided to widen the pool of nominees from five films to ten. It wasn't an unprecedented move, the Academy used to allow a greater amount of nominees back in the 1930s. What they hoped to achieve by reinstating this rule was a more diverse array of Best Film nominees, and so 2010 saw a few genre movies edging their way in alongside the usual Oscar-baiting fare. I half-expected Avatar to take the biscuit this year, but was backing The Hurt Locker regardless. I'm very happy to see that the better film won, and I was generally happy just to see movies like Up, Inglourious Basterds and District 9 included at all. I think the 10 Nominees rule was a big success, and I hope to see it continue for future Oscar seasons.
The Hurt Locker
Whilst it's very much a war film, The Hurt Locker doesn't feel like your typical 'prestige' war movie. There's no grandstanding, no overblown theatrics attached to tragic events, no major stars and no mention of Jews... so it was really even a miracle that it got nominated in the first place, and I'm not sure it would've made it as one of the five nominees had this been like past Oscar ceremonies. Films based on America's recent military excursions to the Middle East have a history of being unpopular with mainstream audiences, and I can't even recall any past efforts (such as Jarhead, Three Kings or Courage Under Fire) even getting any significant Oscar attention. The Hurt Locker rocked my world because it put an emphasis on being an excellent, original thriller over style, characterisation or themes. That's not to say those other things aren't there, it's just a case of this being a really good movie movie first, and a piece of film-art second. The fact that it has something new and interesting to say about war and the human condition is a glorious bonus.
Avatar
I have nothing against Avatar, it was an entertaining enough adventure movie and it was very pretty and colourful. I think it would've been unfair if the Academy had ignored it as there was certainly a high degree of artistry involved and it will remain a landmark in the history of film. But having said that, there wasn't enough substance to justify it winning the Best Film award, and any film where almost every aspect takes a backseat to special effects should count itself lucky that it even got nominated at all.
Up in the Air
Call me cynical, but this epitomises 'cutting-edge' Oscar-bait to me. I liked the movie but the time I've had to reflect on it has highlighted the deficiencies in it's minimalist approach. It's fine to take a subtle approach to your material, but I think it helps to beef up another aspect to act as a counterweight to this minimalism. Up In The Air needed to be either funnier or darker to hit all it's notes, instead it just feels too middle-of-the-road or compromised. It feels all to much like the latest in a long line of contemporary dramas that put their hand out for awards (EG. Michael Clayton, Sideways, Lost in Translation).
Precious
I really liked this one, it didn't feel paint-by-numbers or shallow. It took some incredibly dark subject matter and gave it a lot of heart. I never expected it to win, but it certainly deserved a nomination, and it also deserves your time. Whilst it's the kind of film you'd expect to be nominated by the Academy, it's also exactly the sort of film that needs this level of attention. Precious takes some serious themes - incest, teenage pregnancy, illiteracy, domestic abuse - and treats them in the most contemporaneously intelligent manner. It's the kind of film that, had it been made in any other era, would not have been the same movie.
An Education
It's nice that the Academy gave this British movie some notice, it's a great period drama that effortlessly taps into another time and place. It's also so full of charm and hard knocks that it's impossible not to like it, and exists as a movie that lives and dies off the strength of it's marvellous central performance (the adorable Carey Mulligan). It was never going to win though (as it's both British and fairly small in scope), but it is a very good movie.
District 9
This is one of the movies that would never have gotten a nomination if there hadn't been a 10-film rule this year. In a perfect world District 9 would've had a chance of winning Best Film, but then again in a perfect world District 9 wouldn't have been made as there'd be no horribly real subtext for the film to be based on. Something as thoroughly sci-fi as this (and made by a complete unkown, South African special effects maestro Neil Blomkamp) would never be given the time of day by the bulk of the Academy's voters, but it's somewhat inspiring that it still got nominated as it's this year's Dark Knight.
Up
Another wonderful film. I'm not sure of the stats, but I think only one or two other animated films have ever been recognised for the Best Film category (the first was Beauty and The Beast). You'd have to have a heart of stone to not find something appealing about this movie of broken dreams and unlikely friendships. I was very happy to see it nominated but I don't think anyone took it seriously alongside Avatar, Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker. Unsurprisingly, it won Best Animated Film.
The Blind Side
In my mind, this was the only film that was completely undeserving of a nomination. It's pretty much everything that Precious is not - pandering, vacuous, condescending, and watered-down enough for your grandma to watch. It's an enjoyable enough tale, but the day that this got put up against the nine other films in this category was the day the Academy said, "We're still a little bit out of touch". I imagine there's a parallel universe somewhere where it even won the Best Film award, and people rioted in the streets as a result, burning effigies of Sandra Bullock.
Inglourious Basterds
It rankles me that Kill Bill was never recognised by the Academy in any capacity whatsoever, and after the incredibly poor Death Proof I didn't think Tarantino would ever get near an Oscar again. Inglourious Basterds convinced me that he still had what it takes to make a great film, but I was surprised to see it get the Oscar nominations it deserved. It would be a tragedy if the Academy ever had a hand in creating another abortive career like that of Orson Welles, so I was relieved that Tarantino could still attract their notice. I know it's not really all that cool to like Tarantino any more, but he really is the edgiest talent working in Hollywood today to have a direct pipeline into the most mainstream of audience members. The fact that he can make a mainstream audience watch a movie like Inglourious Basterds is amazing in itself, regardless of it's artistic merit or originality. If anyone else had made this movie, Joe Schmo and his wife wouldn't want to see it. The fact that they do want to see it and enjoy it is part of Tarantino's talent. I wasn't surprised he didn't win, I can imagine a lot of Academy members still turning their nose up at it, but one day... one day.
A Serious Man
This film had less chance of winning than any other. As brilliant, enigmatic and multi-layered as it is, it's just too damn impenetrable to ever gain widespread appeal. To be honest, it was probably only really nominated because it was made the Coen brothers, and the Academy loves to re-nominate past winners (it improves the Academy's own integrity, because it makes the Oscar canon that little bit smaller and more elite). A Serious Man is a good movie, but it's also easily the dark horse of the bunch. It would most likely have gotten the least amount of votes.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
There was never any chance of anyone winning this other than Mo'Nique, such was the power of her performance. Nearly every year there is at least one breakthrough performance amongst all the categories that is completely undeniable, and this was one of those performances. The rest of the nominees were a pretty nondescript bunch.
Mo'Nique (Precious)
The supporting actress/actor category is a great place for screen villains to gain some notice, and Mo'Nique's portrayal of the abusive mother from hell surely goes down as one of the all-time most realistic villains to be put on the screen. What starts out as a cruel-but-simple characterisation eventually ripens into a full-blown monstrosity of ignorance and neuroses... and then we have that final scene that pushes her creation right up against the screen so that we can see all the ugly and malformed gears that make her tick, and all you can feel is a dull sense of pity brought on by her own pathetic part in the ongoing cycle of abuse. Mo'Nique threw herself into this role with a refreshing lack of vanity, and it's frightening stuff.
Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
I dunno why she was nominated... all she really does is combine middle-age with sexiness, and then chucks in a bit of wry wisdom. It's hardly a shining performance, it's pretty much just a female version of George Clooney. Farmiga's been getting a bit of notice lately but, to be honest, I'd never even heard of her before this movie.
Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
I thought Kendrick was actually quite decent in Up in the Air, she had a difficult role in playing the foil for Clooney's frustrations but she managed to pull it off without being annoying or two-dimensional. Like the other nominees, she certainly didn't deserve to win over Mo'Nique, but I'm happy she got nominated.
Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)
As much as I like Gyllenhaal I don't really see this performance as being particularly Oscar-worthy. I think her nomination was just a rub off from all the attention Jeff Bridges got for his lead role in the same movie. She's a decent actress but this isn't a very interesting character, nor does she do anything spectacular with the role.
Penelope Cruz (Nine)
I mentioned earlier that the Academy likes to give follow-up nominations to past winners, well this is exactly that. Cruz won the Best Supporting Actress award last year so it isn't really surprising that the Academy found another performance to nominate her for this year. It's a flashier role than some of the other nominees in this category but it's also every bit as vacant and unmemorable as almost everything else about the movie Nine, and it didn't deserve a nomination.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
I was backing Christoph Waltz all the way but I wasn't really sure if he would actually win. I didn't get a chance to see The Last Station so I can't comment on Christopher Plummer's work, but I wouldn't have been upset to see either Harrelson or Damon win for their roles. As it stands though, I'm very glad that Waltz got it.
Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Another great villain role for the Supporting Actor/Actress category (between this year's winners and the last two winners for the Actor side, it's beginning to feel like a gallery of rogues). Waltz's work as the Jew Hunter was an effortless portrayal of an incredibly complex combination of characteristics. He really created a truly memorable and magnetic performance. It's always fun to see someone break through the language barrier and gain the appropriate kudos too... it's always felt a little smug for the Academy to continuously award primarily English-speaking actors year after year.
Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
I didn't really feel like Tucci belonged amongst the nominees this year. To me he's always felt like a poor man's version of William Hurt slumming it in supporting roles, and I think his villainous turn as a child-killer was a bit too firmly mannered and over-the-top in comparison to the calibre of film that The Lovely Bones wanted to be. I guess the Academy felt sorry for Peter Jackson and decided to throw him a bone by giving him at least one nomination for a largely misjudged movie.
Woody Harrelson (The Messenger)
The Messenger isn't a great film, but you will come away from it thinking, "Woody Harrelson - what a legend!" Harrelson has made a quiet and unexpected comeback over the last two years or so, giving one great performance after the other in relatively decent movies (Seven Pounds and Zombieland both come immediately to mind). In The Messenger he plays a very entertaining character that you will grow to love, a man so marvellously aware of his own faults that it's hard to dislike him no matter what he does... he isn't the lead character in The Messenger, but you'll wish he was. Every time he appeared in a scene the film became a hundred times better. I would've been happy to see him get the award, but I don't think this film was quite visible enough for it to happen.
Matt Damon (Invictus)
This is one of those times where the Academy gave a nomination simply because an American managed the impossible and actually pulled off a realistic foreign accent. Damon's mastery of the South African accent put him alongside Leonardo DiCaprio's Zimbabwean work in Blood Diamond a couple of years ago. I actually wouldn't have minded if Damon even won for this, it made me remarkably happy just to see an American star like Damon decked out in a rugby jersey and playing union. He has a great footy head on him, and he looks buff in this movie.
BEST ACTRESS
I want to vomit! I can't say I'm surprised Bullock won it, but she really didn't earn it. It might be the best work she's ever done, but at least two of the other nominees did better in their respective roles (I can't comment on Helen Mirren as I haven't seen The Last Station). I said it before in my review of The Blind Side, but I think a big part of Bullock's win is the fact that it plays into the charity-loving mindset of the majority of the Academy's voters, and the way that they like to see themselves.
Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Bullock has never displayed much of a range... in the past she's desperately tried to get the Academy's attention by playing against type in films such as 28 Days and Crash, but until now they've ignored her. Funnily enough it wasn't until she played a waspish, emotionally-constipated, silver-spoonfed philanthropist that the Academy decided she was deserving of a nomination. By tapping in to her inner Atticus Finch, Bullock actually managed to give a better than usual performance (twisting herself away from her usual quirks) in a decidedly sub-par movie. I don't really mind her getting nominated, but I hate that she won.
Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
Sidibe deserved some notice for what amounts to a stunning film debut. A large part of her success in this role is down to the fact that the character was fairly reticent and that it also called for her physical presence, but there's also no denying the raw and emotional core she brings forth in the few, spare moments where the script requires it. You never once stop believing that she is this character, so much so that it feels like it could be based on a true story.
Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
It feels greedy to even suggest that Streep might deserve another Oscar, seeing as she already has two and currently holds the record for the most acting nominations (16), but the fact remains that this is yet another striking performance in an increasingly diverse career. After her tough-as-nails portrayal of an iron nun last year in Doubt, she does a complete about-face to play real-life celebrity cook Julia Childs - a buoyant six-foot tall cooking genius with a refreshingly optimistic outlook on life. Despite being nearly 61 she still manages to remain fresh and surprise audiences with her incredible range. She really is the greatest living actor who still remains great.
Carey Mulligan (An Education)
This was my pick for winner. I knew she would never get it as, A) She's quite young and therefore it's not her 'turn', and B) She's British and therefore it's not her 'turn'. I'm all too well aware of how the Academy operates... they're quite happy to hand out nominations to emerging new talents like Mulligan, but they almost never reward them directly (cue, "The nomination is reward enough") as they're often put into competition against American actresses who have been in the game long enough to justify some supposedly overdue recognition. Sorry, I'm still bitter about Bullock winning. Mulligan is absolutely radiant and loveable in this charming, coming-of-age movie, and hopefully this nomination at least means that she'll be appearing a lot more in the near future.
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges has been waiting for a Best Actor Oscar for a long time... significantly longer than Sean Penn waited, and even longer than Pacino had to wait for his. It probably helped that he didn't really have strong competition this year... the only nominated performance of worth was probably Morgan Freeman's (though I haven't seen A Single Man so I can't comment on Colin Firth) and the Academy kept things fairly predictable by ignoring Tom Hardy's amazing work in Bronson.
Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
I can't fault Bridges winning for Crazy Heart, he's not an actor who has ever really compromised in order to chase easy money... even when he appeared in bigger movies it always felt like he was there for the love of acting. Bridges has an incredible career of unsung classics (Bad Company is an early one) and great performances (ranging from fitness chameleons [Stay Hungry] to The Dude [The Big Lebowski]), and his work here as a broken, alcoholic country singer is every bit as carefully observed and heartfelt as any other performance he's given. I'm very happy to see him win.
Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)
Easily the dark horse of the bunch... I was surprised to even see him get nominated, and I think he did an interesting enough job to justify it. I doubt anyone ever thought he would win though, it's not a very showy role and he's so unknown that most people will see his nomination as reward enough (that old chestnut!) We'll see where his career goes from here and what else he can do.
Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
Like most people, I was ready to write off Freeman in this movie. Having him play Nelson Mandela just felt way too predictable, and he certainly hasn't done himself any favours by repeatedly riffing on the same wise old man routine for nearly twenty years. Having said that, he's actually really good in Invictus. He obviously felt passionately enough about this role to disconnect from his icon status enough to give a genuinely realistic performance, one that doesn't sound or feel like Morgan Freeman-playing-Nelson Mandela. This is simply just Nelson Mandela, and if Bridges hadn't made Crazy Heart than maybe Freeman might've got that Best Actor award.
George Clooney (Up in the Air)
As charismatic as Clooney is, I just could not get excited about this role as he is playing himself in very much the same way he plays himself in roughly 80% of the films he makes. He's a charming and entertaining leading man in a very old school sort of way (he always reminds me of Cary Grant or Gary Cooper), but he just doesn't seem to want to push himself as much as I'm sure he could. His character in Up in the Air felt like it could've been a lot more intense, but he just breezes his way through as good-old George Clooney. He should be more than happy with just a nomination, as he didn't even deserve that much.
BEST DIRECTOR
I am so competely chuffed to see Kathryn Bigelow get the Best Director gong. It's hard to believe that she is only the third female director to even get nominated, and I'm just glad that this long overdue cherry got busted on someone who actually deserved it. Not only is The Hurt Locker a logical and highly-evolved extension of her career as a director of action-thrillers, it's also a very effective piece of filmmaking and very much in need of the attention. I've been a big fan of Bigelow ever since she made Point Break (only the greatest action movie of all time) and it will be interesting to see what she does next.
| 75 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
the Oscars were tarnished for me years ago (Eg; forrest gump best picture - Julia Roberts best actress etc) so I don't really put any stock in any of it...Sandra Bullock winning is just another example of how far off the mark they can be. I have to wonder what they look for in a good performance because it certainly isn't an actor disappearing into a role nor an actor that at least keeps you watching due to inventive and subtle eccentricities.
Kathryn Bigelow does rule though, no doubt about that....
Comment by Luke
Old Movies
Cane Toad Warrior