Contempt
In Contention‘s Kris Tapley has seen War Horse, and he’s saying “it most certainly can” win the Best Picture Oscar. He also hedges by saying “we’ll have to see if the season is kind to it” and that “critics will be mixed on it, I imagine” — you may be right about that, Kris! — “so it won’t get the boost of their awards circuit, but it won’t need it.
“And really, after last year’s Social Network orgy, can we stop overstating the importance of critics’ awards, at least for films that have an eye toward Best Picture? What matters is how the Academy will gauge the film, and I think this will be right up their alley.”
If you’ve seen War Horse and understand that it’s a sugary, caramel-covered, Hallmark greeting card family movie in the tradition of My Friend Flicka, Black Beauty and The Red Pony (although not as good as any of these three films), those last nine words constitute one of the basest insults to the Academy membership I’ve ever read. Tapley is too intelligent and perceptive a writer not to realize the import. He’s basically saying “the Academy guys are such emotionally susceptible idiots that they have no taste whatsoever and are unable to recognize shameless schmaltz when they see it, so they might well tumble for this one.”
The Academy doesn’t necessarily disagree with critics’ picks regarding Best Picture contenders. They agreed with critical huzzahs on The Hurt Locker, No Country For Old Men, Slumdog Millionaire. They disagreed last year and again in ’05/’06 when the geezer homophobes tipped the scales in favor of Crash over Brokeback Mountain, and they got it wrong horribly when they gave the Best Picture Oscar to Chicago. But it’s rash to suggest that critics and the Academy live on opposite sides of the fence. We’re all cows eating the same grass, for the most part.
Last year most of the industry ignored the obvious quality of The Social Network in order to give the Best Picture Oscar to The King’s Speech, a fine, respectable, well-made film that wasn’t anywhere near the level of David Fincher‘s film but which had a warmer heart. War Horse is not The King’s Speech. It’s simpleton cotton candy delivered with directorial swagger and high technical expertise. A columnist friend who saw it this morning has just confided that he/she isn’t even sure if it’s good enough to be nominated for Best Picture, and that much of it is laughable or groan-worthy. The columnist I saw it with yesterday said the same thing: “Is this even good enough to be on the Best Picture list?”
Tapley ends his piece by saying “at the end of the day, it could be a showdown between three feel-good period crafts showcases: The Artist, Hugo and War Horse.” Wow.
“It’s simpleton cotton candy delivered with directorial swagger and high technical expertise.”
So an Oscar movie, then.
“the Academy guys are such emotionally susceptible idiots that they have no taste whatsoever and are unable to recognize shameless schmaltz when they see it, so they might well tumble for this one.”
Seriously, Wells? Is this news to you or anyone else? The above is absolutely true. Stuff like THE DEPARTED, NO COUNTRY, and HURT LOCKER are the exceptions, not the rules. And SLUMDOG is shameless schmaltz of the first order. I know you often confuse predictions with wishes this time of the year, but if Tapley is predicting, he’s right on the money.
In ten years, Tintin will be seen as the most influential movie of this year. Actors playing caricatures, insane one-take animation, brilliant transitions and so much fun! It should win
Who are the smarties saying they don’t even think that War Horse is good enough be nominated? Out them, Jeff, and include yourself if that is what you are now saying.
In less than a day you have gone from damning the movie with faint praise to now outright trashing it. How much lower can you go with this?
War Horse is a slam dunk for a nomination.
I know it’s going to get nominated. We all do. But it’s bad enough in some…make that many respects to not even be mentioned as a Best of the Year standout. And that’s what my colleagues were refering to.
Kris is not talking about art, but about awards, not debating quality but assessing the kudos field in a ruthless, dispassionate way.
That’s his gig, as i understand it.
To that end: Why can’t ANY of youse guys see that “The Help” is the Mitt Romney of the field so far?
Those who aren’t behind it are scrambling to find the Newt/Cain/Perry choice that can win.
So War Horse is this year’s The Bind Side, or something like that?
Since Kris himself liked the film a good deal, your analysis of his statement would technically imply that Kris was insulting himself as well. And I doubt that was the goal of his sentence.
I’m a Spielberg supporter for the most part but I’m not getting excited over this. I think we’re really getting back to ALWAYS (*shudder*) territory here. I think this movie is just going to bore a lot of people. I consider John Williams a god but I just heard his score and it’s just an ALWAYS, STEPMOM, and THE RIVER (actually not that bad a score) re-tread. The movie might be pretty to look at but it won’t jazz anyone. Looks like a HORSE WHISPERER situation all over again.
Jeff, That ad you have posted for THE ARTIST on the other hand has me excited about seeing that one..
I had extremely low expectations. I liked the film. It drags a bit. I got choked up here and there. It was manipulative. I didn’t mind. It was nice. Some movies are just “nice.” They tend to win Academy Awards.
Full disclosure: the day the first “War Horse” trailer ran online, I told my Variey colleagues that based upon the films screened so far, “War Horse” was the instant frontrunner.
Just my own affirmation of Kris’s assessment about The Way of the (Oscar) World.
Still: “The Help” is Mitt Romney, “War Horse” is Newt and “Descendants” is Cain/Perry.
Please don’t ask me which Contender is Ron Paul.
Or if “Loud” is Jeb Bush.
Way to hold on to the few dweebs that you refuse to recognize by name as some kind of voice of cinema reason.
I hope it wins just so you can calm the fuck down.
“It’s simpleton cotton candy delivered with directorial swagger and high technical expertise.”
The same could be said of both BABEL and BIUTIFUL, but Jeff ate that shit up like pumpkin pie.
Nothing wrong with “nice” films winning, but if the Award says “Best” Picture, it would mean more if they went for “great”, “important” and “ambitious” films.
“What matters is how the Academy will gauge the film, and I think this will be right up their alley.”
coughcoughEXTREMELYLOUDINCREDIBLYCLOSEcoughcough.
ASTERIK QUESTIONS AND I’LL TELL YOU NO LIES
Sams is suggesting the need for an * to the Best Picture Oscar, something I’ve long lobbied for.
For instance:
* best AMERICAN film with a production budget MORE than (x) and a marketing budget IN EXCESS OF (x) and a boxoffice gross of NO LESS THAN (x) and that ENDORSES the religion of the time and certainly DOES NOT critique the religion of the time, ie should be LIFE AFFIRMING, a CELEBRATION of overcoming adversity or AT LEAST a successful genre film embraced by audiences and at least two critics.
This * would help answer questions such as why “Star 80″ was not nominated for best picture.
“To that end: Why can’t ANY of youse guys see that “The Help” is the Mitt Romney of the field so far?”
FTW!
The only thing that stands between The Help and Oscar is the director being a nobody.
BUT Kris is wrong – he can use last year as an example but all that proved was that it didn’t matter how many people told them to vote for The Social Network they never were going to. That proves nothing. I’ll still put my chips behind the critics over the bonehead industry any day. The Academy doesn’t want to look stupid. The King’s Speech was one of the best reviewed films of last year. The critics decided Social Network was better; it was. But that doesn’t mean that they will from here on out defy the critics at every turn. If War Horse is panned, it’s done for Oscar. Respect for Spielberg could make the difference but unfortunately War Horse is mostly a very good film with a couple of tragically awful scenes that destroy it ultimately and unfortunately. I still cried all the way through it. I still accept it and like it for what it is: a Disney family movie/war parable. What I don’t get: Anne, Pete, Dave and Kris’ reaction.
Extremely Loud? So it will be a battle of the Kleenex films, which one will cause you to use more.
I’m sorry, when did Slumdog Millionaire become something other than schmaltz? That whole film was a heart-string pulling candy-colored bath.
The Help won’t win. It doesn’t appeal enough to men.
“The only thing that stands between The Help and Oscar is the director being a nobody.”
Wasn’t The King’s Speech director a nobody?
Yeah Tom Hooper WAS but he had John Adams and a few other things under his belt. He wasn’t NOT known.
Slumdog was schmaltz but it was Danny Boyle – and thus, Danny Boyle meeting a schmaltzy story kind of worked well (I thought). War Horse is a wonderful story. IMO, it needed someone to just let it be told, not add to, not heighten it. It needed less, not more.
Hooper winning Best Director was like Roberto Benigni winning Best Actor. Totally stupefying and rediculous. Maybe what happened was Aronofsky took votes away from Fincher, meaning two truly great, gifted directors split each other’s vote, allowing Harvey Weinstein’s latest gun for hire (like John Madden) to ride his movie’s coattails. Could they really have thought the King’s Speech direction was superior? And if they did, why do people continue to take this nonsense semi-seriously.
My reaction is similar to yours, Sasha, though just not as strong on the negative. It’s not that mysterious a take to have.
I think we have our mystery “columnist friend,” though!
And anyway, my point about critics (which, no doubt, will always be more discerning than the public — not my argument) is that they don’t need to SUPPORT this film for it to do well on the circuit. If it’s a 40 percenter (like “J. Edgar” became), then it’s cooked. You’ll get no argument from me. But I don’t expect it to fall that way.
We’ll have to wait and see.
I’m not the mystery columnist friend – that person is male and someone we both know. Mine is not in the negative. For what it is I did not hate War Horse. I appreciate it as a mom and as an animal lover. I was greatly moved throughout the whole film. However, it is a Disney family movie — therefore it was unfair of us to put all of that fake Oscar heat on it. That ruins it for what it actually is. It reminded me of one of those movies you see when you go to a historical site. The war scenes are amazing.
It doesn’t need the critics but it’s exactly the kind of film that would do really well WITH the critics. It can’t WIN without the critics. I suspect there will be reverence paid to the middle part with the war – what I loved most about it was how people were so kind to the horse. Every time one of those scenes happened I was amazed at how great it was. But then a schmaltzy scene would happen and it would all but undo the better scenes before it. I just want an editing bay and to chop it all up and try to find that masterpiece waiting to get out.
And also? Oh, for this to have been directed by Coppola or even Soderbergh…it needed a minimalist.
David Poland LOVED War Horse. Called it an “instant classic”. Guess that means it’s doomed.
Great Scott, it IS an instant classic. It is all of those things. It just isn’t going to be the Oscar juggernaut, I don’t think, that people thought it would be.
It’s looking like being a very open year for Best Pic, and my guess is that a consensus film, that appeals to men and women, critics and Oscar geezers, will sneak through. One with a good cast and respected, ‘due’ director.
Sounds like The Descendents to me.
I’d rather The Damned United had won over The King’s Speech
I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well.
wood bench furniture
saugerties homes
Though it’s unfair for me to suppose anything as I haven’t seen War Horse yet, I will say that there’s one line of Sasha’s that makes sense to me, which is that War Horse is not necessarily an Oscar juggernaut waiting in the wings. For it was not meant to be. The original release date was in the middle of August, and it was only after the studio saw a sufficient number of dailies that they realized it was quite clearly more of a “holiday family film.” In that sense, I’ve always been expecting something of a “Disney war film,” or what have you.
“Instant classic” means more to me, at least, than Oscar-winner, since at least half the time, those two do not go hand in hand.
Based on Sasha’s description, sounds like a film directed by John Ford for Walt Disney.
Maybe a cross between Wee Willie Winkie, The Quiet Man, What Price Glory? and The Horse Soldiers (tonally).
Colin @20: When’s the last time you saw Slumdog? Your recall doesn’t seem to extend past the Bollywood dance sequence at the end. That movie was about 80% brutal…from the police interrogations to the riots, the death of his mother, the whole sequence with the gangsters blinding the children, the scene where he dives in the shit puddle, the constant poverty…it totally earns the right to pull on your heart strings.
As a John Ford fan, I find the comparisons to him a little nauseating. Not that I’ve seen the movie. I’m curious, though, as to what makes it similar to a John Ford movie.
adsfas: Aesthetically, a lot of the photography recalls the high key stuff you see in films like The Searchers. And I think John Williams’ score at times recalls Max Steiner or Dimitri Tiomkin. I get a Gone with the Wind/Lawrence of Arabia vibe from a lot of the imagery, but there is that stagy outdoor feel to some scenes, clearly deliberate, that recalls the Technicolor western era. The photography is uneven throughout and I think it was merely an attempt to do something a little fresh with material Spielberg can do in his sleep.
Some have argued that it white-washes war or needlessly backs it into the family-friendly Disney corner when there are horrors to be displayed. Setting aside the fact that it’s taken from a book meant for children, I’d say at this point a near PG film about this stuff is the unique thing to do.
But if you want to watch a body be carted off in two halves, you can certainly give the documentary Hell and Back Again a look. A different sort of emotion, though.
@Abbey
The brutality doesn’t make the schamltz acceptable, it just makes the bad memories that much more manipulative. As for the shit puddle though, that was played for laughs.
Don’t get me wrong I like Boyle, but that film just said that he was due. All the sadness and angst was only serving as a placeholder until the happy ending came along.
I don’t think war should be PG, really, at least historical wars within the last 100 years or so. And I’m pretty relieved War Horse doesn’t appear to be the Oscar juggernaut I feared. Now all I have to dread is ELAIC and Dragon Tattoo (don’t all pile on me, I’m just not a fan of the material or Fincher).
David Fincher’s film but which had a warmer heart.