The Oscar nominations were announced Tuesday morning, and everyone likes to chime in on who shouldn’t have been nominated or who should have been but wasn’t… and well, I wil now count myself among that “everyone”
Let’s start with something big—no, not Best Picture; I’ve already written at least two long blog entries on that subject, so I won’t be covering it here. So, on to Best Director. My top five for the year would probably be David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, Danny Boyle, Christopher Nolan and maybe the Coen brothers. Though The King’s Speech was a fine film, I would not include Hooper, and though The Fighter is getting love from plenty of people I would really only count Christian Bale’s nomination for Supporting Actor as the only one the film really deserves
Christopher Nolan made a film that truly is a Christopher Nolan film, something that would be significantly different had anyone else directed it. The King’s Speech, The Fighter—these are generic enough that any director could have managed. There is nothing particularly insightful about the way Hooper directs the various close quarters of The King’s Speech and nothing particularly energetic or artistic about the way Russell put together The Fighter—those boxing scenes, for example, could have been pulled right out of any other generic boxing film. And the plotting could have been pulled out of any generic sports film (hell, The King’s Speech has the same basic throughline)
I would take Ben Affleck directing The Town over either of them. Or, if you want someone whose hand on the film is notable (and you gotta like that in a director, or why are they worthy of being noted?), I’d suggest Sofia Coppola for Somewhere, Doug Liman for Fair Game, or the easy standby, Roman Polanski for The Ghost Writer. Or, how about something from the Millennium trilogy: Neils Arden Oply for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, or better yet Daniel Alfredson for The Girl Who Played with Fire, or best of the three as far as direction, Alfredson again for The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest. These are movies where the director made a noticeable difference… seriously, I was actually surprised to discover (apparently, I’d misplaced his name in my mental rolodex) David O. Russell made a movie I love (Three Kings) and a few I like (Flirting with Disaster, I Heart Huckabees, Spanking the Monkey). It’s like he was eccentric and has gotten too tame. I didn’t really see his hand in The Fighter. And Tom Hooper’s done a bunch of British television apparently, and John Adams, which I loved… but even in that, I’d say the direction was too subtle to garner a directing nomination
Speaking of the Millennium series (even a few sentences on), let’s put Noomi Rapace on the list of actress nominees more deserving (notably for the third film, The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest, than say Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right. Yes, she’s playing a lesbian—that’s awesome—but, no, the film was not all that special and aside from maybe the crying bit near the end, she really doesn’t have to actually do much as far as the acting. She should not be in the running, and should certainly not be the likeliest to upset Portman’s shot at the win. If the Academy really wanted to nominate Bening, it should have been for Mother and Child, where she actually had to stretch and emote in more than one scene—damn it, I actually liked The Kids Are All Right (though I think it would have worked better without the “affair” being sexual, as I think I’ve mentioned before in this blog), so I should not have to be the one arguing against its inclusion… and Mark Ruffalo? Seriously, this guy has done great work in the past, but what was so great about his work in The Kids Are All Right? Perhaps Ryan Gosling and Aaron Eckhart should have gotten themselves promoted as “supporting” and taken Ruffalo’s slot (for, respectively, Blue Valentine and Rabbit Hole, for those not keeping up… note, of course, that the female leads in both these films were nominated; how else could they have been so good if not for their “supporting” husbands, right?
And, on that “supporting” note, the Academy has switched actresses before—Kate Winslet, for instance, was promoted as Supporting Actress for The Reader but got nominated for Lead. Then again, Hailee Steinfeld was in a Coen brothers film, and they have a good precedent for misplaced nomination in Frances McDormand, who won for Lead Actress in Fargo when she actually had 3 minutes less screen time than William H. Macy who was nominated as Supporting Actor… not to imply that it’s all about screentime. But, seriously, Steinfeld’s character is the protagonist of the film. Bridges and Damon—structurally, they are supporting players here in True Grit. Of course, I wouldn’t begrudge Bridges his nomination in the Lead category as his role is certainly meaty enough to qualify… of course, if we swapped him down to Supporting to, say, take Ruffalo’s place, then Gosling or Ekhart, or Paul Giamatti, for that matter, who just won the Golden Globe for his work in Barney’s Version, could slide into the Lead race… not that any of them will win over Colin Firth
The thing is, there’s plenty of room in the Supporting Actress category. Helena Bonham Carter, if she was going to get a nomination should have gotten it for Alice in Wonderland, or Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I for that matter. Her role in The King’s Speech is a dutiful wife role that most any actress of the appropriate age could have played… and so probably could have some younger ones. She’s awesome and all, but The King’s Speech rests on Colin Firth about 80%, Geoffrey Rush about 10% and the last 10% is shared by Carter, Pearce, even Hooper. The film should not be up for the most awards of any this year. It should not be up for Sound Mixing for example. Sure, there was some good sound work going on—the film is focused on speech so it kinda has to get the sound right, but that slot would have been better served by going to (for the second time in this paragraph) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I. That film had some of the best sound of just about any film this year, good enough to be next to Inception or The Social Network, two other nominees for that award
But, I was talking about Supporting Actress. Melissa Leo is amazing; I’ve loved her since I first saw her on Homicide Life on the Street and last year her role in Frozen River was a serious contender against Mo’Nique. But, aside from being willing to get her hair and makeup done up, there wasn’t “obvious winner” painted on her role in The Fighter. And, Amy Adams even less, though I’ve liked her in everything she’s done (I think) since Junebug. The roles in The Fighter are, despite coming off a true story, very clichéd, almost trite. I think that’s why Bale stands out so much, as he rises above the material, and above his castmates
But, I was talking about Supporting Actress. I’m not sure Mila Kunis should be on the list; what did she do that was so great… beside Natalie Portman? Perhaps Winona Ryder, sufficiently creepy and rounded with very little screen time. Or Barbara Hershey as the overbearing mother. How about Rosamund Pike in Barney’s Version? Lesley Manville in Another Year. Or, Dale Dickey for her not-quite villainous turn in Winter’s Bone. And, speaking of villainy, though most don’t know who she is or what the movie is, don’t bump Jacki Weaver out; she was awesome in Animal Kingdom
A final note on acting, at least they didn’t put Mark Wahlberg up. Better Tobin Bell for the final chapter of Saw… actually, that dude’s done pretty well and it could be a nice capper to the series if he was up for an Oscar
Moving on to Documentary feature, notably absent is Waiting for ‘Superman.’ And, I would pick that over The Lottery as far as the school lottery documentaries go. One documentary I rather liked was Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work but for some reason I don’t know, it isn’t even on the official list of films eligible for Oscars. I’m not sure I’d nominate it for Documentary Feature, but it is certainly worth a mention, since it took a prize at Sundance last year. Two very different documentaries that were eligible but didn’t make the final cut are Catfish and The Tillman Story. Both very emotional documentaries, but playing on different emotions. The former is a tragic examination of a doomed relationship and at least one very damaged person. The latter plays on rage, putting a simple character examination in the midst of a larger political story. While Restrepo (which got nominated and covers the war angle among the nominees) got better as it went along, The Tillman Story was riveting right from the start, and had a much tighter focus (inherent in its subject relative to Restrepo’s, of course). Inside Job, which was nominated, covers the economy angle among the nominees, and it covers the subject well, but really isn’t, outside of a good, timely, audience-enraging subject, that great a documentary (personally, Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story covered the economy much better, giving it more emotional heft than Inside Job does (not saying it purports to be emotional, but it certainly could have used more personality)
Finally, Mike Leigh should be indefinitely disqualified from the screenplay category—he doesn’t write screenplays… there is certainly something worth awarding here but it does NOT fit in this category at the Oscars
And a personal wish: Ana’s Playground needed to be nominated for Live Action Short, as an Oscar nod would have meant a much better chance of me getting to see it
No comments:
Post a Comment