One thing that people have not been able to STFU about since the Oscar nominations were announced this Thursday was the big surprise in the Best Director category. Here's the official line-up:
Michael Haneke, Amour
Ang Lee, Life of Pi
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Behn Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
The big shock? That only one of the high profile directors expected for a nomination (Spielberg) actually made the final five. Left off were the legitimate contenders in Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty) and Ben Affleck (Argo), as well as two other directors that made uneven films and puzzling directorial choices but that were also late-season megahits (Hooper for Les Mis and Tarantino for Django). It's become a big deal, getting media coverage even in non-movie-lover's circles, including the influential sports writer, Bob Simmons, who took to Twitter with his complaints.
So, technically speaking, this is the final five that would have made general audience Oscar followers happy (and I'm using "general audience" in the pejorative, slightly condescending sense in that these are the people that, more or less, only go to the movies to watch easy-to-swallow, basic-three-act kinds of movies - which makes up a majority of people but doesn't exactly make the best subjective choices):
Ben Affleck, Argo
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty
Tom Hooper, Les Miserables
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
But do we really want to base our Oscars based on the general audiences? I realize I'm coming off sounding like a snob and general audiences are what keep the film business going, but when there is a general aversion for this kind of movie-goer to see a film with any kind of experimental taste, aren't we missing out on a whole bushel of exciting, unique stories just to prop up the same people we always have? Generally speaking, people hate things that are different and they also hate feeling that they're wrong (I am totally convinced that a solid percentage of people who get irate at Oscar nominations do so because of pricey Oscar pools). So couldn't we sprinkle in a little flavor? Let's keep tinkering. This is probably a list that would have made everyone - general audiences and film nerds - happier:
Ben Affleck, Argo
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty
Michael Haneke, Amour
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
Behn Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
That seems like a perfect mix of art house sincerity and mainstream popularity. But what about the beloved films Silver Linings and Life of Pi? I haven't put them on any of these hypothetical line-ups. We should find a way to fit at least one of them in cause they're so beloved. I'll say Silver Linings Playbook has harbored a more feverish following (and I liked it more, and I'm in charge here). So let's try this:
Ben Affleck, Argo
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty
Michael Haneke, Amour
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
Behn Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
Now, there's another issue. Can we really leave off God himself, Spielberg? I can't think anything that will piss people off more than not nominating the Chosen One. But wait, while I am playing the Oscar decider and changing nominations as I please, here's an even better list:
Ben Affleck, Argo
Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty
Michael Haneke, Amour
Behn Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
Aaaahhh that's better (sorry, I just wanted to see it in PTA nominated in print, even if its pretend). Now that's a list that would have made me grin from ear to ear. Wait, what? Hopefully by now, you would have realized my jest with my central point being: in the land of Oscar, no one leaves feeling totally happy. To sit there steaming over Bigelow and Affleck doesn't do anybody any good considering A) both films were fairly well-represented outside of the Best Director, B) both have already won Oscars - and one of them very recently, and C) it's not like these directors have to retire from filmmaking if they don't win. This is all obvious I know, but this funnels into what I really want to talk about, and that's people funneling that steam in the direction of two directors that actually did fantastic work: Behn Zeitlin and Michael Haneke.
People, angered over the snubs of Bigelow and Affleck have aimed their crosshairs at those two, and it's easy to figure out why. Zeitlin and Haneke were the surprise choices, and the two that exactly 0.01% had predicted in their Oscar pools (at least together). And because a lot of people have not got around to seeing Beasts and Amour (compared to the big dogs Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty and Argo), it's very easy to point out the ones that you don't know and say 'Hey, what the hell are you doing here? You weren't invited to the party!' And I hate that. I hate it for several reasons. I hate when people tear apart nominated films when they haven't even seen them. I hate when people think the Oscars should cowtow to their specific tastes and preferences and the idea that people are taking out two films that I loved very much just because they didn't see their nominations coming.
This is particularly frustrating when you consider that only ten years ago, the idea of either being nominated for Best Director would have been laughed out of the room (I've always loved Bigelow for Point Break and Near Dark, but 2002's K-19: The Widowmaker may have put her in a position where many people thought she was finished; as for Affleck, we all know how much of a punching bag he used to be). Now, suddenly, it is a travesty that they've been snubbed. I will admit that them not getting the nod will lead to a terribly uneventful ceremony, it just feels like a Lincoln landslide at the moment. But we cannot blame this on Zeitlin and Haneke, just because they had the indecency of being nominated for films not made to get nominated.
I actually mentioned this to Nathaniel R from 'The Film Experience' on Twitter and got a response.
And he's right. This isn't the first time that this kind of thing has happened. And I don't mean to sound like Silver Linings or Life of Pi are not deserving. I loved Silver Linings but merely liked Life of Pi, but those are films that make more obvious directorial choices (Lee with some great 3D and Russell with a great many Scorsesean swoop-in shots and motion editing), compared to the subtlety of creative choices within Beasts and Amour. Again, now we're just debating subjective choices. Overall, I think Affleck and Bigelow should've been nominated. But I would've taken out Russell and Lee instead of Zeitlin and Haneke. But I'm not the decider and neither is anyone else. If you want to boycott the ceremony cause you want to avoid the Lincoln parade, go right ahead (I'm not particularly thrilled with it either). Let's just be nicer about it. And more than anything, let's be fair. This isn't sports. This isn't politics. Film has taken up such an important part of my life, but I find myself saying this more and more to some around this time of year: it's just movies, people.
No comments:
Post a Comment