The Oscar race is turning into a weird and very ugly one this year.
Or perhaps because we’ve paid less attention than usual. The “big four” ended up being mostly a big waste of time: Peter Jackson’s “The Lovely Bones” is — again, we’ll repeat this line cause it really fits — a tampon commercial set to the music of Enya (at least all those terrible fluffy CGI-heaven moments are), “Nine” was a major disappointment, “Invictus” is moderately rousing, but still an average-to-ok work and now we obviously have “Avatar” which was met with some surprisingly breathless reviews, despite being just enjoyable B-movie. Even folks that we respect like Jeff Wells and Anne Thompson were in the tank for the movie (honestly we were a little shocked by that).
“Avatar” is a grand spectacle and like “Jurassic Park,” it’s a big slice of entertainment, but it doesn’t deserve to be at the Oscar ball.
In fact, “Invictus,” “Nine,” “The Lovely Bones” and “Avatar” all don’t deserve to be part of the 10 Best Picture nominees, but it’s frightening to think that all of them have a very good shot, which is why the 10 Best Pictures idea is seemingly an even worse idea now than when it was announced in May. Yes, Oscars a weird popularity contest and definitely a shallow enterprise.
However, bonehead Oscar blogger Tom O’Neil is correct for once (we hope) when he says (paraphrased by Jeff Wells) that “The movie’s greatest fight lies ahead at the Academy Awards, but James Cameron‘s film will probably trip up in the home stretch due to the Academy’s old-fart contingent.”
God, we’ve never wanted old farts to yield this much sway ever before. Even films that we didn’t necessarily totally love like Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds” have more business being in the top 10 Best pictures than any of these four aforementioned films. There’s been some Oscar talk for Spike Jonze’s “Where The Wild Things Are” and that’s a much more front-to-back successful film than all of those as well. Let’s not even forget the “The Messenger” which is a very, very fine film.
We’re afraid the top 10 is going to look like this:
“Avatar,” “Invictus,” “Nine,” “The Lovely Bones,” “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,” “Up in the Air,” “An Education,” “The Hurt Locker,” A Serious Man,” “Up”
When it should look like this:
“Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,” “Up in the Air,” “An Education,” “The Hurt Locker,” A Serious Man,” “Up, “A Single Man,” “Bright Star”… fine if two of them MUST go in, “Nine” and “Invictus.” Actually ‘Inglourious’ has a major shot here.
No, we don’t care for “Precious” and that’s not our definitive what the 10 Oscar picks should be (we’d probably even drop “Up” “Up In The Air”), but seriously, “the big 4” should not make it and its disheartening to think they’ll all make it.
“Bright Star” and “A Single Man” don’t seem to have enough box-office or support to earn nominations, but they’re both tremendously deserving, should be there and both do contain traces for Oscar-baity-ness (Jane Campion’s film certainly is Oscar-bait, but unfortunately has been inexplicably overlooked). This years Oscars may prove that this institution is only occasionally worth following closely (and 2007 and 2008 were both very respectable Oscar years that skeptics need not be embarrassed about).
Come February when the announcements are made, we fear we’re going to be majorly disappointed.
I think it'll come down to Up in the Air vs Precious, with 8 other movies in the running because they have to be. I don't think Hurt Locker can do much better than a nomination sadly.
If the Oscars are "a shallow enterprise" why do you care so much?
Can I answer that, The Nomad Family? The honor of "Oscar winner" placed after your name or the title of your film is still noteworthy and considered honorable. Yet the process of determining the nominations for an Oscar much less winning one is often a deeply flawed political game. This has always been true, but never more true than recent years when the ratings for the Oscar presentation TV show, it seems, have become a factor in the awards themselves. Therefore, a film like "Bright Star" which is not only my favorite film of the year but of many years, can, despite its superb artistry, fall by the wayside because of poor box office and lack of public support.
@SittingPat
I agree that the Oscar's wanting at least decent ratings plays a role. Hopefully it doesn't turn into the numerous music "awards" shows that nominate and hand out awards so that the biggest draws get air time. Seeing Jeremy Renner run up the stage to protest Saoirse Ronan's Best Supporting Oscar wouldn't be cool.
Is this the argument for "seeding" Precious so high? The Oprah factor? To me it seems like Precious lost a lot of the wind in its sails after 'The Blind Side' came out. And now it has 'The Princess and the Frog' taking much of the attention, especially in the category of recent films with race being a talking point or marketing tool.
I don't think 'The Lovely Bones' will play a real big part. Especially if few people go see it when it comes out mid-to-wide release. Do limited releases in the last week of the year (just to qualify as 2009) often get many accolades?
It's been a pretty slow year. I know that because 'Inglorious Basterds' is still my favorite movie of the year.
Don't forget Two Lovers. That's a kick ass movie, babies!
I agree, this 10 nominees change is not a good idea. And I have a feeling the Academy isn't really going to change their taste much or accomplish what was intended other than maybe finally giving Pixar a BP nomination.
You think Nine and Invictus should get in over Avatar? The current reviews seem to favoring Avatar quite a bit.
Best foreign film : A prophet ! SURE !!
Trailer here : http://www.kdbuzz.com/?bande-annonce-un-prophete-de-jacques-audiard