Oscars Meta & Discussion (it's not quite a final club but . . .)
These are the movies we talk about when we talk about film, when we talk about the movies that have inspired and influenced filmmakers and artists, when we talk about the films that have changed our culture, our conversations, when we talk about the images and performances that last, that endure that -
Wait. No. Sorry. That’s this list:
Citizen Kane, High Noon, Dr. Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde/The Graduate, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan/The Thin Red Line, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Sideways, Brokeback Mountain, Curious Case of Benjamin Button/Milk
And next week, we’ll have a new set of movies to add to these lists. The King’s Speech will go on the first one and The Social Network will find its place on the second. Of course, you have already guessed that the first list is a list of Best Picture winners and the second list is the corresponding pictures that lost.
I am not trying to pretend I have all the answers. But I’ve been playing “the Oscar game” for over a decade and with the explosion of online Oscar blogging/speculating in the last three years, well, it’s made everything even MORE predictable. We, as a fandom, should prepare ourselves for the worst. The very worst. (more about that in a bit.) But we should also look at the larger implications at play here, which is what I hope this post will do. I am going to use “we” here not to imply fandom is some monolith but mostly to save time. (And to refer to people in the Oscar watching fandom. Which I guess is an actual thing, lol.) Of course, WE all have different ideas and opinions :) and my hope is that this post’ll give us a chance to bring them all out!
1. This is not about The King’s Speech.
First: I saw The King’s Speech in September at one of the very first public screenings at the Toronto International Film Festival. I gave Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush and Tom Hooper a standing ovation with the 1,000 other people in the crowd. I wrote that night on my Facebook “that movie is gonna be nominated for a lot of Oscars.” I liked it just fine, is what I am saying. It is a solid B+/standard Masterpiece Theater fare. Not my cup of tea, but not a terrible movie by any means.
And I know, we’re a loving fandom and we all want to lick Colin Firth and no one wants to be a spoilsport or a hater or harsh anyone’s squee. Dude, I know.
But The Social Network is a better film than The King’s Speech. There’s no hating in that. That’s not being bitter or no fun or harshing squee. There’s not even, really, any debate. You can love The King’s Speech more, of course, but you can’t cinematically defend it as a superior example of craft. You just can’t. It doesn’t hold up. That’s why The Social Network has won all the critic’s awards. Regardless of anything else, critically, The King’s Speech is not as technically well-made and it is not as well-directed. For more, I’ll direct you to a fair, comprehensive critique, one of the best about this I’ve read: a piece by Mark Robey in The Telegraph.
2. How did this happen?
Harvey Weinstein, basically. Why exactly TKS took over the momentum is something Oscar bloggers have been debating for weeks and weeks, since the race shifted. Everyone has a pet theory, of course, and that’s pretttttty boring if you’re not into that level of analysis. (if you are, hit up the comments and we’ll go at it!) Anyway, I don’t think part is important. But I call the main theory "smart vs. heart." And I could talk for days about how the main theory “TKS is an ‘Oscar’ movie because it makes you feel and TSN isn’t because it makes you think” is utter horseshit - not because TKS doesn’t make you feel, not because “feel-ing” movies don’t have an edge but because TSN makes you FEEL, GOD-DAMN IT! (“Tell me this isn’t about me getting into the Phoenix.”) And if you don’t understand that and want to come into the argument with only “TSN is smart and TSK is heart” then you didn’t understand either movie enough to be critically discussing them.
3. Do we have any shot?
No. Yes. On Sunday, in something of a surprise, TSN won the ACE from the American Cinema Editors. Watchers weren’t expecting this. The editors are a big voting block and they are pretty good about predicting Best Picture. This doesn’t give us much hope, but it does tell us, as did Fincher’s unexpected win at the BAFTAs, that there is still some industry feeling for TSN. Now, since we’re dealing with the preferential ballot the idea is that maybe TSN has enough “second place” love to pull off an upset. But, frankly, I think TKS has too much “first place” love and will take it in round one of voting. (again, if you want to talk in depth about the preferential ballot, hit me up in the comments!) What I’m saying is: no. (Sasha Stone, one of the most annoying Oscar bloggers around who is a TSN supporter but who I feel quite frankly misses a lot about TSN’s strengths and appeals, has a good piece about the precedent going into the race for much more detail about this. She also has tons of charts, stats, and TSN defenses. But they’re mostly too “smart vs. heart” for me, she's real smug about how liking TSN makes you, like, a genius. Ugh, Sasha.)
The real worry here is that TSN will come away with nothing other than Sorkin’s screenplay win and even that would be shaky if he wasn’t in adapted. That would be, ya know, a big downer. And industry watchers would rub that shit in. There are some surprises in the old girl left, and they're in the "how big will TSK's sweep?" If everything starts going for TSK early, well. It's been nominated for some utterly undeserved stuff (costumes! cinematography! sound mixing?!) and if it starts picking those up, like score? We're done. It's all downhill and it'll be ... bleak. But! I do think we have a shot in a few technical categories, especially if the ACE is any indicator, which is good news and really does speak to the craft of the film.
We even … and here’s the big one … have a shot at Best Director. This is a tiny shot! An oh-so-tiny shot. But that’s what they said the year Rob Marshall directed Chicago and lost to Roman Polanski. The parallels are similar - new kid vs. older pro, actor’s showpiece vs. director’s showpiece. And, let me tell you, people like David Fincher much better than Roman “Child Rapist” Polanski. He was a hold-your-nose-‘cause-he-directed-Chinatown vote. Fincher’s sure not. Hooper won the DGA, but the DGA is also made up of TV directors and guess what? They like Hooper a lot because of his admirable TV work. He won’t have that edge in the Academy and he’s made The Damn United but Fincher made Fight Club.
I don’t want to call Best Director, too heartbreaking for me, but … it’s the one shot we have left.
4. What About Jesse? What About Andrew?
So, after the SAG nominations, I knew Andrew was cooked for a nomination. Unfair, I know, but Supporting Actor is, no joke, always the hardest category to crack. How’d he get shut out? Well, part of it was the competition, of course. Look at the guys that were nominated instead of him. Long-time Hollywood veterans, all. Part of it was too many people promoting the “smart vs. heart” argument. Andrew is, as we know, a big part of the heart, so when that part of TSN gets downplayed, so does he. (yet another reason I hate that reasoning.) Part of it was that he really did have just enough vote splitting with Timberlake and Hammer. It was tiny, but their superb supporting work hurt him some.
And part of it was, well. Andrew Garfield did win an award this year. And that award was “Congrats, you beat out every young actor in Hollywood before you’d even legit broke in the states and had only done British television, but now you’re a movie star, Spider-Man!” That was a huge endorsement of him, as an actor, and when he turned out Never Let Me Go AND TSN this year, it paid off. Andrew is going to have an entirely different career trajectory now, one he’ll be able to control in many ways and one he’ll have no say over in other ways. The industry absolutely knows this. Sony Pictures is behind both The Amazing Spider-Man AND TSN and that is not a coincidence. It’s a statement that Sony’s banking on Andrew Garfield. And when studios are banking on you, it’s a whole different acknowledgment and it’s a promise: “stick with us kid, and we’ll take you places.” Andrew Garfield’s going places. And those places can now be wherever the fuck he wants. Still: WTF JEREMY RENNER!? ;)
Jesse is an entirely different situation. OK, first? You know when people say, “Just to be nominated is such an honor!” and everyone rolls their eyes? That is so absolutely true for Jesse Eisenberg. Not just because he’s young, not just because he’s not as well known as the other people in this category - but because the kind of acting he does in this movie is so rarely acknowledged by the Academy.
It is reactive acting, as my best movie friend says. The Academy doesn’t recognize that. They recognize extroverted acting. That’s not what Jesse does here. We see Mark reading the room, or disengaging, or quietly registering loneliness. That's a big deal. The movie is filled with moments like this: when Eisenberg gives you a whole world with a gesture, a shrug, a stare, the way he slouches, leans, smiles, flinches. (I have a whole essay about his performance, so I’ll just cut this off here…) This is incredible work, accomplished and detailed especially for someone who was only 25-26 at the time, but not the kind that usually gets even nominated for Oscars. (somewhat ironically, it’s the kind of work Colin Firth did last year in A Single Man.) I’m not saying this is Eisenberg’s only skill set, but he’s not an extroverted actor. The reactive performance is his strength and it’s certainly where he blooms. He’s a generous actor in this regard and it’s part of why he makes the people around him so much better. (what up, Kristen Stewart!)
And, you guys, I have no doubt that Jesse Eisenberg knows this. He knows this might be his only Oscar nomination and he knows the nomination is his award. If anything, this nomination serves as a proof that he's "nominate-able." I know, that's stupid but there you go. Jeremy Renner didn't get in for The Town because it was such unbelievable work (though it was good.) It's because now he's "Oscar-worthy." And from now to the next 60 years, so's Jesse Eisenberg. He’s been out pitching and selling and campaigning for this movie, and for himself, for six months. He has run an almost perfect campaign, really, and he’s never flagged in enthusiasm. It’s not because he thinks he can win. It’s because he wants to use this leverage. Leverage to be in Woody Allen movies or get his musical made or win a Tony or make any kind of movie he wants next. It’s no coincidence we’ve seen a leaner, more chiseled, more styled Jesse Eisenberg during awards season. (hello motherfucking cheekbones, JFC.) It’s part of the campaign to smash “Are you Michael Cera?” to death. That’s what leverage is, that’s what this Oscar campaign is, that’s what this Oscar nomination is. I know, it’s that cute anxious shtick about how even being nominated is an honor. But, for real. Even being nominated is an honor. Even being nominated is the award. Jesse Eisenberg knows it and we should too.
5. Does any of this even matter?
Yes. No. It matters as much as you care about the Oscars. It matters as much as you follow them. For me, someone who follows them and cares about them, it matters quite a bit. It matters because of what it tells studios and executives they should make more of. It matters in “the industry” and it matters to that woman you work with who just knew “the Facebook movie” could never be as good as The King of England learning that he can overcome struggles! It matters in that, for one night, Hollywood comes together and says "this one, this is the best we can do" and 40 million people say, "Well, OK then." It hurts, it does, when it's not your film, the one you love and know. It hurts, also, when as a cinephile, you see it's not worthy. TKS doesn't deserve to NOT win (double negative much?) but, boy, that's damning it with faint praise. "Well, it's no Crash!" is hardly the ringing endorsement you want in a Best Picture WINNER. Especially not in a year this creative, this good, a year topped off with a movie as beautiful, original, and as well-crafted as The Social Network. So yeah, that stuff - it matters.
But it also matters not at all. Because time does tell. Look back up at that list. Go over it, marvel at the hilarity. Not just the hilarity. Kramer vs. Kramer is a good movie with very good performances. But it's aged, and not well. It doesn't tell us anything about it's time period. It's maudlin and creaky. Apocalypse Now is … um, Apocalypse Now. It consistently reveals new depths about its era to us, it feels fresh and classic, it's a revelation in performance and direction. Look even more recently. Million Dollar Baby. Good enough, but unfinished and a lesser Eastwood work. Sideways. Unbelievable career changing performances, a script that dares you to look deeper, a shot in the arm to indies. Time does tell. In five years (in less) people will scratch their heads. This will be one of the defeats that turns up in pop culture articles. The first great movie of the decade, a stylistic challenging snapshot of contemporary life that reveals universal themes with bold direction vs. a BBC-lite hagiography with lackluster direction and good performances that just tells us it was rilly hard to be King and (gasp) stutter. It's not a contest.
And more than that. I don’t need five years. I know now. I know what the best picture was and I know why. Don’t you?
Wait. No. Sorry. That’s this list:
Citizen Kane, High Noon, Dr. Strangelove, Bonnie & Clyde/The Graduate, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Saving Private Ryan/The Thin Red Line, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Sideways, Brokeback Mountain, Curious Case of Benjamin Button/Milk
And next week, we’ll have a new set of movies to add to these lists. The King’s Speech will go on the first one and The Social Network will find its place on the second. Of course, you have already guessed that the first list is a list of Best Picture winners and the second list is the corresponding pictures that lost.
I am not trying to pretend I have all the answers. But I’ve been playing “the Oscar game” for over a decade and with the explosion of online Oscar blogging/speculating in the last three years, well, it’s made everything even MORE predictable. We, as a fandom, should prepare ourselves for the worst. The very worst. (more about that in a bit.) But we should also look at the larger implications at play here, which is what I hope this post will do. I am going to use “we” here not to imply fandom is some monolith but mostly to save time. (And to refer to people in the Oscar watching fandom. Which I guess is an actual thing, lol.) Of course, WE all have different ideas and opinions :) and my hope is that this post’ll give us a chance to bring them all out!
1. This is not about The King’s Speech.
First: I saw The King’s Speech in September at one of the very first public screenings at the Toronto International Film Festival. I gave Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush and Tom Hooper a standing ovation with the 1,000 other people in the crowd. I wrote that night on my Facebook “that movie is gonna be nominated for a lot of Oscars.” I liked it just fine, is what I am saying. It is a solid B+/standard Masterpiece Theater fare. Not my cup of tea, but not a terrible movie by any means.
And I know, we’re a loving fandom and we all want to lick Colin Firth and no one wants to be a spoilsport or a hater or harsh anyone’s squee. Dude, I know.
But The Social Network is a better film than The King’s Speech. There’s no hating in that. That’s not being bitter or no fun or harshing squee. There’s not even, really, any debate. You can love The King’s Speech more, of course, but you can’t cinematically defend it as a superior example of craft. You just can’t. It doesn’t hold up. That’s why The Social Network has won all the critic’s awards. Regardless of anything else, critically, The King’s Speech is not as technically well-made and it is not as well-directed. For more, I’ll direct you to a fair, comprehensive critique, one of the best about this I’ve read: a piece by Mark Robey in The Telegraph.
2. How did this happen?
Harvey Weinstein, basically. Why exactly TKS took over the momentum is something Oscar bloggers have been debating for weeks and weeks, since the race shifted. Everyone has a pet theory, of course, and that’s pretttttty boring if you’re not into that level of analysis. (if you are, hit up the comments and we’ll go at it!) Anyway, I don’t think part is important. But I call the main theory "smart vs. heart." And I could talk for days about how the main theory “TKS is an ‘Oscar’ movie because it makes you feel and TSN isn’t because it makes you think” is utter horseshit - not because TKS doesn’t make you feel, not because “feel-ing” movies don’t have an edge but because TSN makes you FEEL, GOD-DAMN IT! (“Tell me this isn’t about me getting into the Phoenix.”) And if you don’t understand that and want to come into the argument with only “TSN is smart and TSK is heart” then you didn’t understand either movie enough to be critically discussing them.
3. Do we have any shot?
No. Yes. On Sunday, in something of a surprise, TSN won the ACE from the American Cinema Editors. Watchers weren’t expecting this. The editors are a big voting block and they are pretty good about predicting Best Picture. This doesn’t give us much hope, but it does tell us, as did Fincher’s unexpected win at the BAFTAs, that there is still some industry feeling for TSN. Now, since we’re dealing with the preferential ballot the idea is that maybe TSN has enough “second place” love to pull off an upset. But, frankly, I think TKS has too much “first place” love and will take it in round one of voting. (again, if you want to talk in depth about the preferential ballot, hit me up in the comments!) What I’m saying is: no. (Sasha Stone, one of the most annoying Oscar bloggers around who is a TSN supporter but who I feel quite frankly misses a lot about TSN’s strengths and appeals, has a good piece about the precedent going into the race for much more detail about this. She also has tons of charts, stats, and TSN defenses. But they’re mostly too “smart vs. heart” for me, she's real smug about how liking TSN makes you, like, a genius. Ugh, Sasha.)
The real worry here is that TSN will come away with nothing other than Sorkin’s screenplay win and even that would be shaky if he wasn’t in adapted. That would be, ya know, a big downer. And industry watchers would rub that shit in. There are some surprises in the old girl left, and they're in the "how big will TSK's sweep?" If everything starts going for TSK early, well. It's been nominated for some utterly undeserved stuff (costumes! cinematography! sound mixing?!) and if it starts picking those up, like score? We're done. It's all downhill and it'll be ... bleak. But! I do think we have a shot in a few technical categories, especially if the ACE is any indicator, which is good news and really does speak to the craft of the film.
We even … and here’s the big one … have a shot at Best Director. This is a tiny shot! An oh-so-tiny shot. But that’s what they said the year Rob Marshall directed Chicago and lost to Roman Polanski. The parallels are similar - new kid vs. older pro, actor’s showpiece vs. director’s showpiece. And, let me tell you, people like David Fincher much better than Roman “Child Rapist” Polanski. He was a hold-your-nose-‘cause-he-directed-Chinatown vote. Fincher’s sure not. Hooper won the DGA, but the DGA is also made up of TV directors and guess what? They like Hooper a lot because of his admirable TV work. He won’t have that edge in the Academy and he’s made The Damn United but Fincher made Fight Club.
I don’t want to call Best Director, too heartbreaking for me, but … it’s the one shot we have left.
4. What About Jesse? What About Andrew?
So, after the SAG nominations, I knew Andrew was cooked for a nomination. Unfair, I know, but Supporting Actor is, no joke, always the hardest category to crack. How’d he get shut out? Well, part of it was the competition, of course. Look at the guys that were nominated instead of him. Long-time Hollywood veterans, all. Part of it was too many people promoting the “smart vs. heart” argument. Andrew is, as we know, a big part of the heart, so when that part of TSN gets downplayed, so does he. (yet another reason I hate that reasoning.) Part of it was that he really did have just enough vote splitting with Timberlake and Hammer. It was tiny, but their superb supporting work hurt him some.
And part of it was, well. Andrew Garfield did win an award this year. And that award was “Congrats, you beat out every young actor in Hollywood before you’d even legit broke in the states and had only done British television, but now you’re a movie star, Spider-Man!” That was a huge endorsement of him, as an actor, and when he turned out Never Let Me Go AND TSN this year, it paid off. Andrew is going to have an entirely different career trajectory now, one he’ll be able to control in many ways and one he’ll have no say over in other ways. The industry absolutely knows this. Sony Pictures is behind both The Amazing Spider-Man AND TSN and that is not a coincidence. It’s a statement that Sony’s banking on Andrew Garfield. And when studios are banking on you, it’s a whole different acknowledgment and it’s a promise: “stick with us kid, and we’ll take you places.” Andrew Garfield’s going places. And those places can now be wherever the fuck he wants. Still: WTF JEREMY RENNER!? ;)
Jesse is an entirely different situation. OK, first? You know when people say, “Just to be nominated is such an honor!” and everyone rolls their eyes? That is so absolutely true for Jesse Eisenberg. Not just because he’s young, not just because he’s not as well known as the other people in this category - but because the kind of acting he does in this movie is so rarely acknowledged by the Academy.
It is reactive acting, as my best movie friend says. The Academy doesn’t recognize that. They recognize extroverted acting. That’s not what Jesse does here. We see Mark reading the room, or disengaging, or quietly registering loneliness. That's a big deal. The movie is filled with moments like this: when Eisenberg gives you a whole world with a gesture, a shrug, a stare, the way he slouches, leans, smiles, flinches. (I have a whole essay about his performance, so I’ll just cut this off here…) This is incredible work, accomplished and detailed especially for someone who was only 25-26 at the time, but not the kind that usually gets even nominated for Oscars. (somewhat ironically, it’s the kind of work Colin Firth did last year in A Single Man.) I’m not saying this is Eisenberg’s only skill set, but he’s not an extroverted actor. The reactive performance is his strength and it’s certainly where he blooms. He’s a generous actor in this regard and it’s part of why he makes the people around him so much better. (what up, Kristen Stewart!)
And, you guys, I have no doubt that Jesse Eisenberg knows this. He knows this might be his only Oscar nomination and he knows the nomination is his award. If anything, this nomination serves as a proof that he's "nominate-able." I know, that's stupid but there you go. Jeremy Renner didn't get in for The Town because it was such unbelievable work (though it was good.) It's because now he's "Oscar-worthy." And from now to the next 60 years, so's Jesse Eisenberg. He’s been out pitching and selling and campaigning for this movie, and for himself, for six months. He has run an almost perfect campaign, really, and he’s never flagged in enthusiasm. It’s not because he thinks he can win. It’s because he wants to use this leverage. Leverage to be in Woody Allen movies or get his musical made or win a Tony or make any kind of movie he wants next. It’s no coincidence we’ve seen a leaner, more chiseled, more styled Jesse Eisenberg during awards season. (hello motherfucking cheekbones, JFC.) It’s part of the campaign to smash “Are you Michael Cera?” to death. That’s what leverage is, that’s what this Oscar campaign is, that’s what this Oscar nomination is. I know, it’s that cute anxious shtick about how even being nominated is an honor. But, for real. Even being nominated is an honor. Even being nominated is the award. Jesse Eisenberg knows it and we should too.
5. Does any of this even matter?
Yes. No. It matters as much as you care about the Oscars. It matters as much as you follow them. For me, someone who follows them and cares about them, it matters quite a bit. It matters because of what it tells studios and executives they should make more of. It matters in “the industry” and it matters to that woman you work with who just knew “the Facebook movie” could never be as good as The King of England learning that he can overcome struggles! It matters in that, for one night, Hollywood comes together and says "this one, this is the best we can do" and 40 million people say, "Well, OK then." It hurts, it does, when it's not your film, the one you love and know. It hurts, also, when as a cinephile, you see it's not worthy. TKS doesn't deserve to NOT win (double negative much?) but, boy, that's damning it with faint praise. "Well, it's no Crash!" is hardly the ringing endorsement you want in a Best Picture WINNER. Especially not in a year this creative, this good, a year topped off with a movie as beautiful, original, and as well-crafted as The Social Network. So yeah, that stuff - it matters.
But it also matters not at all. Because time does tell. Look back up at that list. Go over it, marvel at the hilarity. Not just the hilarity. Kramer vs. Kramer is a good movie with very good performances. But it's aged, and not well. It doesn't tell us anything about it's time period. It's maudlin and creaky. Apocalypse Now is … um, Apocalypse Now. It consistently reveals new depths about its era to us, it feels fresh and classic, it's a revelation in performance and direction. Look even more recently. Million Dollar Baby. Good enough, but unfinished and a lesser Eastwood work. Sideways. Unbelievable career changing performances, a script that dares you to look deeper, a shot in the arm to indies. Time does tell. In five years (in less) people will scratch their heads. This will be one of the defeats that turns up in pop culture articles. The first great movie of the decade, a stylistic challenging snapshot of contemporary life that reveals universal themes with bold direction vs. a BBC-lite hagiography with lackluster direction and good performances that just tells us it was rilly hard to be King and (gasp) stutter. It's not a contest.
And more than that. I don’t need five years. I know now. I know what the best picture was and I know why. Don’t you?