Note to the Academy: Why So Serious?
The Oscar nominations were finally announced this morning, and, as soon as Forest Whitaker said Frost/Nixon, alphabetically passing up The Dark Knight, I knew that, unless the Academy subscribed to Comcast's idiotic system of alphabeticization, they had turned their backs on the Batman. Bummer. I was beginning to root for him.
So after this and this and this, here are your (or their) best picture nominees:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire
What does this mean? As I wrote last January, since the Academy finally settled on five best picture nominees in 1944, there have only been six years when there wasn't a top 10 box office hit among the nominees: 1947, 1984... and the last four years in a row: 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. This year, unless Benjamin Button can make another $50 million without getting swamped in the process (it's currently at $103 million), that'll probably be five years in a row. Stunning.
In the past I didn't quite know who to blame for this divide between supposed popularity and supposed quality. The Academy? The studios? Moviegoers? But not this year. The Dark Knight was a critically acclaimed, monster box office hit with tons of buzz. In terms of domestic, unadjusted dollars, it was the no. 2 movie of all time. Yes, it was about superheroes, and no superhero film has been nominated before; but before Lord of the Rings no fantasy film had been nominated, either. The rule sticks until something breaks it. This year? Didn't break. And it was the year to break it. We're not talking about crap like Spider-Man 3. We're talking about a pretty good movie. One of the five best of the year? Maybe. I'd take it over Frost/Nixon and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button anyway. Don't know about The Reader yet. Read it, but haven't seen it. (Psst. It's about the Holocaust.)
Besides, in the past, the Academy has nominated some popular but fairly suspect films for best picture. Love Story? The Towering Inferno? Three Coins in a Fountain? Ghost? It's hardly a body to hold its nose.
Feel free to read more here as they come.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"The Dark Knight" has to be one of the most overrated films of all time. Count me soooo out of the mainstream, if the mainstream wants to indulge in such darkness, such pronography of madness.
God Bless the Academy for passing it by.
You mileage may vary.
I see where BlackJAC is coming from below when he says: "The kind of movies that get nominated for the big Oscars are pretentious, artistic ones that critics love deconstructing and micro-analyzing and reading into because critics are failed filmmakers themselves who want to prove to everyone else that they know "chin-ee-ma" better than any card-carrying member of the WGA, DGA, or SAG."
Trust me, it's true. How do I know this? Because the cinema critics inherited their "angsty snootiness" from the literary critics, manye of whom I have had the displeasure of running across in college. (I'm an English Writing major.) If it can't be "deconstructed" or "micro-analyzed," then in the eyes of these people -- literary or cinematic -- it is worthless.
Basically, they get mad at popular films and popular literature because it cheats them out of their rightful place as tastemakers and analysts. TDK, as a film, doesn't need much deep analysis to be entertaining. It speaks to a visceral part of being human. But since it doesn't need deconstructing (and remind me to find Jacque Derrida in hell and beat the crap out of him), then by and large, it puts them out of a job. Moreover, movies like TDK are an a priori proof of just how useless most critics are in the first place; they commit the sin of not needing to be talked up at snotty parties. Simple as that.
Actually, a film like The Dark Knight is a lot more complex than you give it credit it for. It's a film that can be easily deconstructed and micro-analyzed. So many people viewed this film as not just a comic-book summer movie, but as a story about the war on terror, the lengths we go to fight terrorists, and what our methods say about us. So much of what happens in the story (Joker terrorizing Gotham, Batman breaking the law to catch him, citizens being pushed to break the rules they've set for themselves), these are things that have happened in real life for the last 8 years. And depending on who you talk to, the movie either endorses Bush-Cheney policies or shows just how ineffective or damaging they are. So there's plenty of analyze. The problem is Hollywood doesn't want to discuss this. They want to turn the page on the Bush years and pretend like the nightmare is over. They want to reward more uplifting films that celebrate the human spirit rather than show how dark it is. That's why Slumdog Millionaire, Forrest Gump II and Milk got nominations.
We got to remember that the first Lord of the rings did not get best picture. And The Two Tower got pretty much ignored. But by the time Return of the king got eleven nomination the full extend of what Peter Jackson did with that project had finally sink in. I always felt that the first or the second deserved even more the Best picture than the third. And I always said that it was a damn shame Andy Serkis did not even get a best supporting actor nomination for Return he was eligible since he is present on screen for one scene!
Read today's New York Tims article for a better perspective on the awards than Lundegaard has given and about why 'Dark Knight" wasn't consdiered for a Best Picture nomination. I agree entirely with the Time's article. The film could have used better editing and especially in that third act. The film was too long.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/movies/awardsseason/23carr.html
I agree. The movie could have ended at least 5 times. It was like a loud vampire that would not die. It was a slogfest of violence that threw in the kitchen sink, the bathtub and the neighbor's trashcan. Heath Ledger was great as the Joker but even he could not make that Bush Era ode to violence end. It became absurd and pointless - if it weren't so LOUD I would have fallen asleep.
Fun movies like THE DARK KNIGHT don't get nominated for the "big" Oscars because they're fun. The kind of movies that get nominated for the big Oscars are pretentious, artistic ones that critics love deconstructing and micro-analyzing and reading into because critics are failed filmmakers themselves who want to prove to everyone else that they know "chin-ee-ma" better than any card-carrying member of the WGA, DGA, or SAG. It's the nature of the beast, and I accepted it a long time ago.
I don't know if this is any indication of a mass trend, but I was at a screenplay reading on Wednesday night and I overheard a member of the Academy talking about the films this year and without singling out any individual films she stated that the times are so dark and bleak that we need uplifting films.
Could the The Dark Knight have been too "dark" for the Academy? Same with Revolutionary Road, which may have been too emotionally dark for the Academy. (Thank goodness Michael Shannon received a nomination).
Also, the Dark Knight came out earlier in the year and in a genre the Academy often overlooks.
That's not an excuse, just an explanation.
Since you are asking "why so serious"...
For me, the biggest oversight was the failure to nominate Sally Hawkins for Best Actress for "Happy Go Lucky" despite her wins of the National Society, New York and Los Angeles Film Critics Awards (and her Golden Globe). For some reason "comedy" is not seen by some actors in the Academy to be as challenging as "drama". As an actor myself, I can definitely state there is nothing "easy" about comedy.
"the times are so dark and bleak that we need uplifting films."
This is what I posted below. I really think that they wanted uplifting films. With all the bad economic news we hear, maybe they were worried the Academy would get criticized for awarding a dark film.
I've seen all of the spidermans, fantastic 4s, x-mans, batmans, and ironman. and i have to say by- far i thought this was the best superhero movie. this movie was not predictable at all. everyone in the theatre was sitting on the edge of their seats. and the joker, just brought the movie to a whole new level. usually im not afraid of villains in movies but omg he was a genuine psycho and was so believable and it was just..... i thought that even if Heath Ledger had lived, how could he come back from that? it seemed as if he was really the joker and that how he was in real life. it seemed as though he was completely intertwined with the joker and it was no way to separate the two. so whats so bad about a movie so dark and sinister that really had a message to deliver with great acting and action filled scenes deserving an Academy. Ugh its always the love, tragic or just sad for no reason stories that win.
I agree it was suitably complex. A talker with action dropped in. I thought the scene on the ferry was fantastic.
he// yeah it was!! i thought some1 was going to press the button but really it was going to be the bomb in their own ship or maybe bothe ships were going to blow up.
Hey maybe if the american people give the academy enough hell about this we can influence them to go back and take another look at this MAJOR PR mistake they just made. And if they don't reverse and give TDK its well deserved nominations, simply don't watch the awards show. Check the Heath Ledger victory clip out online the next day (You just KNOW it will be all over the net) and relish the knowledge that you have done your part in snubbing those egomaniacs in the Academy.
Erik, as much as I loved The Dark Knight and thought it was worthy of a Best Picture and Best Director nomination, I think the real problem was that too many in Hollywood viewed the film as an endorsement of Bush-Cheney policies. In the film, Batman kidnaps someone, tortures a suspect to get information, breaks someone's legs to get him to talk, and spies on the entire city. I didn't view any of this as an endorsement of Bush-Cheney, but too many people did. If anything, I think the movie shows how these tactics backfire. When Batman beats The Joker, he gets the wrong info. When he breaks Maroni's legs, Maroni confesses that he can't help Batman. And when Batman kidnapped Lau, sure he helped Dent but it only led the mob to use more extreme methods, like hiring The Joker. How anyone can view this movie as an endorsement of Bush-Cheney is beyond me. What I love about this film is how well it comments on the times we live in and how the fear of terrorism has led us down the wrong path and allowed our leaders to break rules in the name of protecting us. But perhaps Hollywood wanted something more hopeful since we just elected Obama and got rid of Bush. The Dark Knight was perhaps too dark for Academy voters, which is why they voted for more uplifting fare like Slumdog Millionaire and Forrest Button.
Yeah and in the end the Joker win and Batman is hunted like a criminal! That one hell of an endorsement of Bush policies!
The Dark Knight, its predecessor Batman Begins, and Iron Man all proved what comics fans have known all along: in the hands of the proper creative team, superheroes can be used in serious stories. The Dark Knight took the theme of what price we must pay for security and ran with it. Besides being one of the best looking science fiction films released in years, Iron Man reminded us that if we develop our technology without a heart and a conscience our technology will turn around and bite us on the ass.
You want that piece of chaotic mess that took violence to a new level and required several viewings to undersand to get an award, wait for the MTV Movie Awards or the Nickelodeon Awards - the Oscars are for craft and art, not commercial success. The one thing TDK had going for it, Heath Ledger, was nominated. Stop boohoo-ing because films that are far more intelligent and worthy were given deserved accolades.
I have a few things to reply about IrmaCMD's comment.
1. If you didn't understand TDK in one showing...whats wrong with you? It was damn clear with its message.
2. Oscar's are for craft and art. Yes, they are. Comic books are art. The craft is turning them into a good movie.
3. Obviously TDK was intelligent and worthy as it has 8 nominations and smart because even you didn't understand it.
A view on the actual nominations:
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Mr Button grows backwards and experiences life in reverse. Awesome. Even George Carlin would approve. This they also mix in with a tragic love story. Meh...
Frost/Nixon - A dramatic retelling of interviews between British talk-show host David Frost and Richard Nixon. They only problem is the movies pivotal point is a lie. Art and Craft there. Lying is awesome.
Milk - The story of California's first openly gay elected official, Harvey Milk, a San Francisco supervisor who was assassinated by Dan White. Good story. Tragic. Not Art. History is just that. History. Unless you consider Hitler's reign as art.
The Reader - Michael Burk re-encounters his former lover as she defends herself in a war-crime trial. Artistic and well created.
Slumdog Millionaire - The story of the life of an impoverished Indian teen Jamal Malik, who becomes a contestant of "Who Wants to be A Millionaire?", wins, and is then suspected of cheating. So what? Not artsy or craftsy. Just a story.
Thank you! You said that perfectly and I agree completely.
Color me furious about the omission of Dark Knight for best picture. As has been said quite a bit, this was not just your mediocre, brain dead superhero comic book movie. I have traditionally despised this genre of movie. But Dark Knight was something entirely different. Finally, a comic book movie with a point of view and intelligent in the bargain. I loved the dark themes in this movie - good versus evil, morality, how far law enforcement can go in breaking the rules to stop crime. It made you uncomfortable, unsettled, uneasy and thinking as you left the theater. That' a good thing.
Of course, Heath's Joker took this movie to a very special place all its own. I am glad that he was recognized for his brilliant work. I only wish that he was here to enjoy the rewards.
This just shows how out of touch and snobby the Academy really is when it comes to movies. You are right - this was the time to break the rule and nominate the comic book movie. Why? Because it was great! Simple as that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
