|
||||||||
Oscars
2001 a brief review by Jeffrey Overstreet Copyright © 1998 by Jeffrey Overstreet. |
||||||||
If
you're in a hurry, click here to see the Report Card: |
||||||||
| It's the time of year when critics are
expected to chime in with their grumblings about the Oscar nominations. It is hard
to resist that temptation, and I'm giving in to it like I always do. After all, I
don't think the Oscars are just a worthless charade. A reader reminded me that, early this year, I concluded my review of "Gladiator" like this:
"Don't you hate being right?" he quipped. Well, yeah. "Gladiator" was certainly popular entertainment, proving one of the summer's most successful blockbusters. But if it walks away with the Oscar for Best Picture, moviegoers around the globe, myself included, will only have more reason to doubt the integrity of Oscar voters. Some of you are probably already laughing. Why I would suggest that this superficial, glamorous, money-driven awards show has any credibility in the first place? Well, frankly, I don't believe it has any credibility. The voting process is burdened with strange, outdated, and illogical rules. I mean, come on... except for films from America, only ONE MOVIE PER COUNTRY qualifies? That means, even though "Yi Yi" has triumphed on many critics' Best of the Year lists, it doesn't qualify for Oscars because "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", also from Taiwan, has already qualified. Both films are far more worthy artistically than most of the titles that received nominations. This and many other ludicrous standards prevent the awards from accurately representing what the year had to offer. But I do think the outcome of the awards is an important event. The Oscars determine, whether I like it or not, what movies will receive a great promotional boost... a second life in the theatres with a sort of cultural blessing. They will guarantee winning films a certain fame and notoriety, and if that happens to a great film, it's something worth cheering about. If it happens to a mediocre film, it's disappointing in that it shows those who are supposedly the "professors" of the industry celebrating mediocrity rather than greatness. If it goes to a merely commercial film, well, there you have further evidence that America cares only about the financial bottom line. Of those nominated, I'd like the most worthwhile piece of work to win the prize, so more and more people will be exposed to challenging, eye-opening work. Excellence is not a matter of taste... it is a matter of originality, quality, and integrity within specific disciplines. I want to believe that most moviegoers know the difference between derivative entertainment that is aimed at crowdpleasing, and a work of art that is aimed at enriching the mind, the emotions, and the soul. When "Titanic", an overwhelming entertainment that celebrated youthful rebellion and seize-the-day indulgence, beat well-crafted and multi-layered works of art like "The Ice Storm", it was yet another confirmation that voters tend to honor those who like their movies as nutritious as their popcorn. They want special effects for the eyes and sentimental pablum for the emotions, as opposed to something that might really mean something. Last year's "American Beauty", although I took issue with it on several levels, demonstrated a higher level of artistic excellence. This year, it's anybody's guess what will happen, but I'm worried. BEST PICTURE If you've followed my reviews this year, you know that I share the opinion of critics all over the country... that both "Almost Famous" and "You Can Count On Me" deserved to be nominated in this category, but were beaten due to poor box office performance. I would also have included "Yi Yi", my favorite film of the year, but it was disqualified, as I mentioned earlier. This year, of those nominated, "Gladiator", "Chocolat", and "Erin Brockovich" represent films that were enormous commercial successes, but don't a whole lot to offer beyond their surface-level entertainment. What you see on the movie poster is what you get in the movie. They're by-the-numbers fables, decently accomplished. "Traffic", on the other hand, raises tough questions, bravely tells it like it is, and avoids conventional Hollywood resolutions. And "Crouching Tiger" is poetry disguised as an action movie, with a lot of hard questions and interesting dilemmas under its seemingly simple surface, and it ends with an mysterious and provocative final scene. My preference would be to see the judges actually show some interest in a movie with subtitles; I wish they would admit that America does not, by default, always deserve to give itself the Oscar. I'd vote for "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". "Traffic", while it addresses important issues with integrity and craftsmanship, fumbles in its last half-hour with some rather sentimental and unconvincing melodrama. But if it wins, it will show that we are open to unsettling questions in our big commercial movies, and that would be a pleasant surprise. "Gladiator", at this point, is what I expect will walk away with the prize. It is wearing the right costume to fool the judges. It has an old-fashioned, one-dimensional, tough-talking John Wayne hero. It has elaborate costumes, and an important historical context that recalls many great Hollywood films. It has a cast of great actors that give it the aura of integrity, like Richard Harris and the late Oliver Reed. And it has a forumulaic, booming, predictable soundtrack. No one wants to admit that almost every other performance of Russell Crowe's career has been more challenging and accomplished than this one (Does anyone remember "The Insider"? How about "Romper Stomper"?) No one wants to talk about the lousy flavorless dialogue, the frail conversations about "the glory of Rome" that don't ever give us insight into what that "glory" actually is. It would rob the Academy of rewarding such a flashy production, if they talked about how the movie follows a by-the-numbers epic formula, and borrows heavily from a previous film "The Fall of Roman Empire." Or that it steals the style of its flashbacks from better films. It skims the surface of character development, condenses what might have been an involving story into a fast-forward hour in order to give itself room for long scenes of graphic violence. And it adds another title to the long list of movies that glorify violent vengeance as the proper form of response to wrongdoing. BEST ACTOR/ACTRESS In the category of performances, I cannot deny that Julia Roberts gave her best performance as Brockovich. Yes, her costumes were revealing and trashy, but she played every scene just about perfectly, convincing us of this woman's desperation, her love for her children and her passion for doing the right thing. What I cannot believe is that the Academy would nominate Juliette Binoche (my favorite actress) for a one-dimensional performance in "Chocolat" the same year that Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi turn in mind-blowing performances in "Crouching Tiger", where they exhibit subtle emotion and jaw-dropping martial arts skills sometimes in the same scene. Show me one of these nominated actresses capable of such emotional range AND such athleticism. In my mind, their work was far suprerior to this list of nominees (although I cannot say about Ellen Burstyn, having not yet seen "Requiem for a Dream".) Of the nominated actors, I can only address the nominations of Crowe and Hanks. (I haven't seen Ed Harris' "Pollock" or Javier Bardem's "Before Night Falls", or Geoffrey Rush's "Quills".) Crowe, as I mentioned earlier, has been so much better in so many films. Hanks, for all of the complaining Ihear that he has won twice before, really did turn in a great performance, beyond merely losing a bunch of weight. However, the Academy has really missed out by omitting Michael Douglas, who gave a career-best performance as the witty, absent-minded professor in "Wonder Boys". And the finest debut performance I saw this year was that given by Mark Ruffalo in "You Can Count On Me". OTHERS I could go on with my own gripes. But one omission simply confounds me. The Coen Brothers' film "O Brother Where Art Thou?" is, more than anything, a valentine to American folk, gospel, and bluegrass music. T-Bone Burnett has compiled a priceless collection of heartland music, an album that is as rich in rewards, or moreso, than the film in which these songs appear. That this soundtrack would be snubbed by the Academy is such a blatant show of ignorance that it's time somebody stood up at the ceremony and shouted that the Emperor has no clothes. My greatest hope is that the ever-growing community of people who look closely and talk about film, on the Internet, in classrooms, in coffee houses and churches, will become so active and vocal that eventually the Academy will note just how embarrassing its history of awards has become. Perhaps some other circle of critics will become recognized as performing a ritual with integrity and intelligence. Maybe filmmakers will learn to hope for kudos from the New York Film Critics, or some group that understands what makes a good performance, a good screenplay, good music, or a good picture is not money or popularity, but hard work and artistry. (Still, I'm looking forward to the show. How often does one get to see Bob Dylan, Sting, and Bjork perform on the same stage?)
|
||||||||
