Change is in the wind
“Change” is obviously a big theme in the political landscape right now, and there are definite signs over the last couple of years that things have been changing profoundly in terms of Oscar winners also, or more precisely in terms of the makeup of Academy voters. It’s the most interesting thought I’ve heard all day about last night’s show, and it came out of a chat I had a few minutes ago with Pete Hammond. Here it is.
People are assuming that the change is an indication of a shift toward the academy’s acceptance of independent, edgy moviemaking.
I think it’s more likely that our concept of what constitutes independent, edgy moviemaking has changed so that it seems more acceptable to the academy awards venue. In other words, I don’t see anything terribly edgy or independent about either “No Country” or “There Will Be Blood.” If anything, the directors of these movies have been far edgier in most of their previous outings. They seem to be more and more mainstream as time goes on. Perhaps their acceptance at such a folly as the academy awards is the final blow to their credibility as independents.
To extend the analogy a bit further, from my perspective, the most frightening aspect of Barack Obama’s candidacy is his endorsement from Oprah, that apotheosis of mass mediocrity, whose influence on “the new voters” may be right for all the wrong reasons.
Careful what you wish for, etc.
So two years of picking dark movies outweighs picks like Crash, American Beauty, Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, Lord of the Rings, Gladiator, and Shakespeare in Love, all of which have won in the past ten years? Let’s wait til next year before deeming this little trend bona fide.
I think what Hammond and many others aren’t quite grasping here is that this year’s Raging Bull is not No Country For Old Men– it’s There Will Be Blood. No argument from me about No Country’s merit, but in terms of awesome, new, surprising and fresh filmmaking? In terms of a youthful director early in his career working at the “height of his powers?” In terms of a titanic lead performance that even the least hip of a patently unhip crowd can’t help but get behind?
Then there are the stats. Raging Bull picked up two Oscars (out of eight nominations) in 1980– Best Actor, Best Editing. Ordinary People, a very good film and more than just a “nice, safe picture” as Hammond labels it earned six nominations and won the exact same awards as No Country did this year: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor, Script.
But I’m not only making the argument that fairly random and coincidental stats imply that Blood and Bull are kindred spirits– there’s also their budgets and grosses. Bull cost 18 million and made 23; definitely not a hit by any measure. Blood cost somewhere in the 20-something million range, and has so far taken in about 35 domestically. The ratio is so close here.
The critics– Raging Bull took the LA Film Critics Best Picture and Best Actor in 1980, just as Blood did this year. Took Best Actor from the NYFCC, which gave Ordinary People Best Picture that year. These patterns just go on and on.
The point of it all is, I hope, to prove that Raging Bull was by no means a slam-dunk obvious smash-em-up classic in 1980. It takes time to make a classic. Guys like Hammond show up and make it seem like, if he was around then, or if Bull debuted this year, he’d have been all about it. Well– I don’t know, the evidence says otherwise, to me.
There Will Be Blood is absolutely going to travel the road of Bull, and Anderson the road of Scorsese. He has so many classics in him… and eventually people are going to be appalled that Blood didn’t with Best Picture this year. I do think No Country has perhaps a more permanent shelf-life than Ordinary People, but it too will fade a little in stature as Blood builds and builds over the years.
So, okay, a really, really good movie won this year. But the classic lost. This is nothing new for Oscar– this is the way it is and, hopefully, always will be. Movies like Raging Bull and Blood do not need these awards to rocket into the stratosphere, and they shouldn’t. The Academy is that “standard,” and those movies blew clean over the standard’s head, and influenced the next batch of great directors. “This is how this works.”
“Influenced” and “is influencing,” I should say.
Another correlation: Bull would not be a classic without De Niro’s performance, just as Blood would be less without Day-Lewis. Also, both actors have 6 letters in their first names and two words in their last.
I hope they stop wimping out on animation next time, though.
Another correlation: Bull would not be a classic without De Niro’s performance, just as Blood would be less without Day-Lewis. Also, both actors have 6 letters in their first names and two words in their last.
Wimping out how? By giving the award to the best animated movie of the year?