A Letter to the Academy, or, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU DID

I was working on an in-depth look at my top ten films from 2010, but really, there aren't any surprises on my list - I tried really hard to include The Wolfman, Daybreakers, and Kick-Ass, but in the end it boiled down to:

10. The Other Guys
9. Easy A
8. Scott Pilgrim v. The World
7. The Runaways
6. Toy Story 3
5. Inception
4. The Fighter
3. The King's Speech
2. How to Train Your Dragon
1. The Social Network

Then I planned this impassioned defense of why things like True Grit and Black Swan and Winter's Bone aren't on here, but let's be real, we all know a few things about me: a. I love kid's movies; b. I love dragons, c. I didn't like True Grit, and d. I sweat Jesse Eisenberg and Christian Bale. All of which really explains just about everything up there.

But I'm a procrastinator, and I lost my window to make that discussion relevant. Luckily for me, new things are happening in film media all the time, and I have been hand-served a topic rife with controversy just this morning.

So let's talk about the Academy Awards.

It's hard for me to explain my devotion to the Oscars. I've watched the entire telecast, front to back, including the red carpet show, every year since I was 14 (Fellowship of the Ring had a lot to do with that). I love the spectacle, true, but as I've learned more about film and become more able to view it critically and, most importantly, discuss it intelligently, I've been able to watch the Oscars critically as well. Especially because the more often I watch the awards, the more "awards fodder" I take the time to watch. It's a feedback loop - I enjoy movies, so I watch the Oscars; I watch the Oscars, so I see awards-bait to put them in context.

My boyfriend laughs at me because I take film too seriously (which I do, no doubt), but...there's something to being able to watch the ceremony on an informed basis. I like being able to see the nominations and say, "Well, I agree with this this and this, but this is clearly my pick for the win, because of this." The more I know about the nominees, the more fun it is.

What happened today is appalling. For the most part, I was neither surprised nor displeased with the nomination results - I may not like True Grit, but the rest of Hollywood does. The Social Network, The King's Speech, these have always been the front runners. Sure, there were a few (pleasant) surprises in the acting categories, but not many, and none I actively disagreed with. I'm sure at this point you all know where I'm headed with this, but I'm plowing onward anyway.

Dear Academy,

Why, oh why, didn't Christopher Nolan get nominated for Best Director? Why nominate Inception AT ALL if you're not going to recognize that Nolan was the reason it was so great? You know as well as I do that in less capable hands, Inception would have been a confusing, stuttering mess. Nolan was able to take a handful of psychology, some talented but disjointed actors, and an exposition-heavy script and turn it into a visual, thrilling masterpiece. The script itself is not enough to elevate this film to its exceptional levels; even the (admittedly stunning) visuals by themselves didn't make it great. Nolan did.

This is also not the first time that Nolan has taken an ensemble cast and a fabulous backdrop and produced something amazing. I understand why The Dark Knight didn't get much love from you - I didn't agree with the decision, but I know summer blockbusters, even when they are exceptional films, aren't really part of the Academy image. Which begs the question: why nominate Inception, which was just as much of a big-budget spectacle as TDK, at all unless it's partly an apology to Nolan for not recognizing his work last year? And if you're going to take that step, why the directorial snub? Your choices make no sense.

Nolan deserves that statuette, Academy. Not just the nomination he was so clearly robbed of, but the win as well. The Social Network will clearly win the Best Picture award, and I'm fine with that. But please, please start giving credit where credit is due. TSN is Best Picture material because of outstanding acting, a phenomenal script, and handling such topical material with deft panache. Inception is Best Picture material because of Nolan. And not recognizing that just makes you blind.

God help you if Nolan produces a hat trick of greatness with The Dark Knight Rises, and you continue to sit on your red velvet pedestal and look down your nose at a man who not only makes entertainment, but great entertainment.

Up In The Air vs. The Blind Side

I've now seen eight of the ten nominees for Best Picture, and of the last two (Precious and A Serious Man, which I have been reading as A Single Man for a long time now, and explains why people look at me weird when I talk about "the best picture nom with Colin Firth in it) I am only vaguely interested in seeing A Serious Man. I've discussed my thoughts on Avatar pretty freely, y'all know how I feel about District 9 (it should win), and I did a pretty in-depth review of The Hurt Locker. An Education was a thoughtful coming-of-age story and Carey Mulligan was charming in it; I really, really, did not enjoy Inglorious Basterds, and Up, while wonderful and whimsical, will have a better chance in the Best Animated slot than this one.

So. To the last two nominees, both of which I had a chance to see quite recently.

Up In The Air was, quite simply, fabulous. Clooney, who is really playing himself here, bounces his wittily written dialogue off his two formidable supporting actresses with aplomb, both of whom hold their own with the leading man in a really interesting way. Anna Kendrick, fresh off the Twilight stage, is an absolute find here - her anal retentive, idealistic Natalie is both refreshingly real and irritatingly superior. She knows what her life is supposed to be like, dammit, and God help you if you get in her way.

Vera Farmiga is the perfect counter-point to Natalie's youth and naivete, and I felt that the weakest scene the film had was due to the writers and the director getting confused about her character. Alex is a sexy, strong, intelligent philanderer and the movie falters when it tries to steer Farmiga away from that; it is best when it lets her and Clooney do what they do naturally (or, you know, what I assume to be natural) without a lot of directorial interference.

I do wonder if the story will age well; it is SO severely topical that it is a great movie for our age, but if when the economy does get better and unemployment is no longer quite such an issue, will it seem as poignant? I hope so - I'd like to think that Clooney's odyssey of self-discovery against the backdrop of such a hopeless, bleak environment is really quite stunning.

Now. Let's all ask ourselves the important question: why the HELL The Blind Side even got nominated.

I saw this, I enjoyed it - I like Sandra Bullock, and she was quite charismatic as the Southern housewife-turned-personal activist. Goodness knows I love uplifting sports movies. The problem was that there was hardly anything TOO The Blind Side. There was no tension; I was never afraid bad things would actually happen to any of the characters, no matter how much the film wanted to make me think so. Part of that is because it's a true story, so you know how it ends, but it isn't as though this is the first time someone has turned a true story into a film. I also thought that one of the central "conflicts" was COMPLETELY ludicrous: a woman from the NCAA tries her damndest to make me think that it could possibly be a bad thing for rich, privileged people to help impoverished, troubled minorities, because SOMEHOW this makes it UNFAIR for universities because they might send talented athletes to their alma maters.

Make sense to you? Me, neither.

I've been thinking about it, and I think that The Blind Side got nominated because the Academy didn't want to double-dip in genres. Star Trek was out because Avatar and District 9 amply fulfill the science fiction quota. The Messenger is out because of The Hurt Locker. (500) Days of Summer was beat by the other indie darling, An Education. It's a place filler; a bad one, but a place filler nonetheless. I don't like it much, but since there are only three real contenders here anyway (no matter what Tarantino wants you to think) I'm not sure how much it matters.

Which in and of itself is a pretty sad thought, in the grand scheme of cinema.

My mother's quest

My mother, like myself, is a very big fan of cinema and also of the Oscars telecast. Every year, she makes it her personal mission to see most, if not all, of the films that have been recognized by the Academy, because it makes the show more interesting to watch. I also try to do this, because I enjoy having a knowledge of the performances - this way I can agree or disagree with the Academy's choices on an informed basis.

This year is no different - my mother made up a list of all the films nominated for the major awards and planned her attack thusly. I am to be taken along for the ride, because my father is not quite so invested in the Oscars as we are. It's a bit tricky at the moment, since some of the films on her list (Invictus, The Last Station) were not wide-release to begin with and are now almost vanished from theaters. But some are actually out on DVD or available on Pay-Per-View, which was how we came to see The Hurt Locker.

Do not doubt that The Hurt Locker deserves all the praise it has been receiving. Ms. Bigelow has created something raw and gritty, that gave me insight into something I didn't know much about before. She captures the tense moments perfectly and for exactly the right amount of time - it is easy, I think, to over- or under-play those "edge of your seat" moments, and Bigelow gets them down perfectly. The opening scene had me sweating in my chair after only a few minutes; a scene in which Jeremy Renner works on a car bomb made me near forget to breathe.

The one technique Bigelow overplayed, in my opinion, was the shaky real-cam. I developed a bit of a headache by the end because of all the bouncing around; this style of shooting does give it somewhat of a documentary type feel, but it is a conceit that the movie is strong enough to do without. I would have felt the impact more if it had been used more sparingly to highlight the peak moments of stress.

Renner is fair brilliant as the adrenaline-addicted bomb diffuser; I had to ingest the film for a while after I saw it, to reconcile the two distinct halves of the film, but I think they ultimately mesh so well because of how Renner folds the mechanics of bomb diffusion show-cased in the first hour into the deeper examination of his psyche in the second hour. (Immediately after viewing I had a problem with two deaths that I thought were unnecessary and cheap - on further thought, I still think that of one, but not the other.)

The Hurt Locker suffers by occasionally overplaying its hand. As I mentioned above, Bigelow takes two easy shots, one of which she convinces me is worth it at the end and one of which she doesn't. I already know that war is hell and that there are no winners and it's unfair and all of that, and the film does a good job of reinforcing those points; I don't need the extra, predictable, unnecessary death to prove that. I also felt the end was too obvious; I won't go into details, but a quote opens the movie and then you get slammed in the face with it at the end.

Worthy of the Best Picture nom? Absolutely. Worthy of the win? Moreso than Avatar, but District 9 is still my favorite - D9 and Hurt Locker are both movies about war and about marginalized people, but D9 tells a stronger story in a more impressionable way. And it doesn't overload you with shaky-cam.

Thoughts on 10 Nominations

The Academy is reverting back to ten nominations for Best Picture this year, which will a.) make the show interminably long and b.) make my never-ending rant in defense of summer film pretty much void. And since I secretly love how long the show is, both of these have me cheering the decision.

Entertainment Weekly is pretty sure they've got seven of the ten possible Best Picture nominees nailed down:
Avatar
Up In The Air
Inglourious Basterds
An Education
Up
The Hurt Locker
Precious

I have been torn for years about the existence of the Best Animated Film category, because on the one hand, its presence means that when an animated film is released that is so good it deserves the Best Picture award (Wall-E), I know it won't get nominated because it is MORE LIKELY to win the Best Animated category. So having Up be an almost guaranteed choice for a Best Picture slot is bittersweet - I know it won't win, but I love that it's there, but did we really need ten slots to fill in order for it to get there in the first place?

(On the other hand, I haven't really decided if it would be my personal Best Animated choice, because I liked Fantastic Mr. Fox so very much, so maybe I'm on the fence for no good reason at all.)

So what fills out the rest? (500) Days of Summer, District 9, A Serious Man. (My predictions, not my choice.)

It's interesting that if there were only five slots this year as per usual, I think it's fairly obvious what they would be:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Up In The Air
Precious
Inglourious Basterds

I love that this expansion is giving other brilliant films a chance they wouldn't normally have; when I first heard about them opening up the category, I felt overwhelmingly like they'd be shoving stuff in just to fill out the noms. But could it be that the Academy, like myself, thought this was just too good a year for film? Did they realize that, even though only one can win, it would do them good to acknowledge film normally outside of their comfort zone? In a normal year, films like Up, (500) Days of Summer, and even Star Trek wouldn't have gotten anywhere near that award - now there's Oscar buzz all over them. So good on the Academy for diversifying a little, even though I know that my personal choice won't win.