It's the Oscars today. I quite like them. To me, they are the award ceremony, across media, with the most genuine prestige, indeed almost the only awards ceremony with any genuine prestige. They've received a bit of damage this year because of the race controversy, but I think, generally, they get quite close to a decent selection of what is best is American/British films in the year. To win one means something. All the arguments about what the Oscars get wrong year on year mean something- arguments about other award ceremonies getting things wrong tend to simply be, say with the Brits, "the Brits are just stupid lame bullshit. Who gives a fuck?", likewise with the Grammys etc. With the Oscars, people argue and disagree because they care.
I've watched a lot of films at the cinema this year, pushing 40, which is pretty good going. I've seen all the major contenders I could have done. 'Still Alice' hasn't come out yet in the UK, slightly unfairly on discerning UK film fans, so we won't have the opportunity to be complain with justification about Julianne Moore's being a "reward" award (it probably isn't - there aren't necessarily outstanding other contenders for Best Actress, apart from Marion Cotillard in '2 Days 1 Night' so good she gets nominated or wins even speaking French - how dare they say the Oscars don't embrace diversity?).
There are three main ones this year, and it's more in doubt than usual - Birdman, Boyhood, Budapest. Though it's my favourite, I can't really see The Grand Budapest Hotel winning Best Picture, but I think it'll win 3 or 4 auxiliary awards.
I've come round to thinking Birdman will be the big winner, maybe getting the big film awards and Best Actor for Keaton - none of which I'd agree with. I can't judge, I can't say what's better or worse. but going on what my heart tells me, triumph for Birdman, though I did enjoy and admire it greatly, would disappoint. Though it's not a safe film, it would feel like the safe choice.
There was a controversy about David Oyelowo missing out on Best Actor and Ava DuVernay for Best Director for Selma - I would agree his performance is really tremendous and i'd have had him above a couple of contenders, but, you know, there are only five slots, it must have been tough. It looks bad, I'm sure the Oscars would have rather avoided the controversy and got him into the list in retrospect, but I genuinely don't think it works like that.
There is a controversy with Selma and with the director though, it seems. She seems to have slagged off the writer and the script, and taken all the credit for formulating the film, mainly to the extent of lifting Luther King as a force above LB Johnson, indeed to the extent of implicating Johnson in racism/being against civil rights movement etc (she was determined it should not be a "kindly white gives black a helping hand up" film ...) having seen the film, which is excellent, I'm not sure on either side of that argument. Most in the know say LBJ is harshly dealt with in the film - I think it's quite clear he's an exasperated but ultimately well-meaning pragmatist.
Anyway, Selma is a strong, powerful film. So, actually, is the maligned American Sniper, a nuanced film about a not particularly nuanced man. Cooper is good.
There are other films that haven't had all the nominations they deserve - Foxcatcher and Wild were both as good as anything else for me, the latter to my great surprise, Pride was lush, Under the Skin was unique, Nightcrawler and A Most Violent Year are tight, gripping and brilliant.
Still, I care. It matters, albeit just a little. The Oscars get vaguely close to highlighting the actual strongest, most lasting English language films of the year. That can't be said for most award shows.
No comments:
Post a Comment