The Oscar winners won't even be announced for another few weeks, and I'm already depressed about them.
The question plaguing me is as follows: when did "pretentious and in love with its own importance" become more award-worthy than "well-made, well-cast, obscenely entertaining, well-acted, and did I mention OBSCENELY ENTERTAINING??"
My prediction: Babel will beat out The Departed for Best Picture. And its director will probably beat out living legend Martin Scorcese, who is one session in the tanning bed away from becoming the Dan Marino of filmmaking: undeniable Hall of Famer, can't close on the Big One.
The Departed can only be described as superb entertainment. It isn't a heavy-handed "message" movie. It's just damn good. (I suppose it's possible that the giant bottle of Captain Morgan that Jeff and I snuck in to the theater to mix with our Diet Coke had something to do with it, but I really don't think so.) This was some finely crafted, unbelievably acted, beautifully made, downright sumptious storytelling, people, and was supremely entertaining...but the Academy stopped awarding "supremely entertaining" over "important" pretty much after the Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan debacle. And that's just not fair, espcially to a director like Scorsese, who pretty much only knows how to do "supremely entertaining." Good for us, bad for his Oscar chances.
This same shit happened to old Marty in 2004, when Clint Eastwood's well-made but depressing as hell Million Dollar Baby (which dared to ask the question, "Can you tell how good a movie is based on how many people went home and stuck their heads in the oven afterwards?") beat out Scorcese's lavish, gorgeous and compelling The Aviator. (I would have even been able to overlook Gwen Stefani's involvement with the latter if it had managed a win in this category.)
Come to think of it, it probably won't be the Babel guy beating Scorcese out for Best Director, but rather Clint--again. The Academy never misses an opportunity to suck that guy's cock, even though he never misses an opportunity to stick one in and break it off for movie goers--Mystic River anyone? Wait, was that one depressing becuase of the story, or becuase of Laura Linney's "Boston" accent?
Then there was last year's travesty--even though it didn't involve Martin Scorcese. Brokeback Mountain was on HBO on Saturday, so I watched it again while dusting (I have way too much wood furniture in my living room these days, it takes me forever to dust, and don't even get me started on cat hair, I've only had the fuckers for 10 days but could build a whole new cat twice the size of both of them put together out of all the hair I've wiped off my coffee table).
This movie was the very definition of superb entertainment. It was moving, realistic, sexy, beautiful, amazingly-acted and directed, sad without being depressing; it had a good message without beating you senselessly over the head with it, the main conflict was complex and compelling; I could honestly go on all day. Plus, hot guys! DOING IT! Jake and Heath!
DOING IT!!!!
Crash, on the other hand, which inevitably rode its own wave of self-congratulatory "look at us, We've Got an Important Social Message" bullcrap straight into the Best Picture award (and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Matt Dillon, who basically did the same asshole riff he played in There's Something About Mary, but playing him straight instead of goofy. What a stretch.) last year, causing an absolute riot among anyone who knows anything about good movies.
I hated Crash. I don't need some obnoxious movie blaring in my ear about how much we all have to learn about our own prejiduces.
Just like I don't need Babel to tell me whatever bullcrap message it's no doubt selling.
Heh Heh...I guess this is where I mention that the theaters up here are finally showing it, and I won't be seeing it until Friday night.
If come Friday it is necessary for me to come back here, hat in hand, and eat myself a heaping helping of my own words? Will do.
Something tells me I won't be though.
3 comments:
Talking with a coworker yesterday as we rehashed the Oscar nods yesterday, it hit me just why "Babel" bothered me so much, and why I think you are going to find you were exactly right about it. He was the director is the same guy who did "21 Grams", maybe I had just repressed that. I couldn't go down that depressing hellhole again. I will admit I do want to see "Letters From Iwo Jima" when I can. I try to tell myself that I believe "Babel" will be out of the picture, I think, and it will come down to Martin and Eastwood, which I can live with. But I mean c'mon, this is ridiculous, "The Departed" out of that bunch ( and I really liked "Little Miss Sunshine" and besides the fact I haven't seen "Letters of Iwo Jima" yet...)...whatever it deserves it and so does he. My other surprises: I feel like I have to see "Blood Diamond" now, but I wish Leo got the nod for "the Departed". Personally though they could have given nearly the whole cast a nod, like they did for The Godfather Part 2, and I wouldn't feel too bad. At any rate people in the know (i.e. Lee) tells me that Leo's South African accent was spot on, I guess thats hard to pull off. It doesn't matter, it will probably be Forrest's night. The other thing, and yeah I know I am biased, but I think Sascha Baron Cohen got robbed of a nomination for acting. But that might be just me.
Kevin
P.S. I think I get it, but what do you think the difference between sad and depressing is?
I feel like sad is an emotional experience, like a sort of catharsis, in which you feel for the characters' pain, and depressing just sucks the life out of you and makes you feel hopeless and desperate. Depressing, not as satisfying as sadness and much harder to shake off.
My humble opinion. And "Little Miss Sunshine" was decent, and that's the nicest adjective I can find. It is NOT Oscar-worthy, I have no idea why everyone in Hollywood is creaming for it.
Post a Comment