Just like with Samuel's most recent post, the status here is largely a pretext for a broader discussion; namely, the role of film - and particularly Academy - awards and ceremonies, both in the industry and among viewers. Is it hackneyed to write about the Oscars in Oscar season? 100 percent. Not even going to try and make an excuse. As an aside, I realize that starting with a status and then immediately moving on to a much broader topic isn't something we should make a habit of - this is after all the News Feed fact check, but this is still week one, and footing needs to be found. Besides, 50/50 was a mediocre schmaltz-fest, and there's only so much you can say about those.
Award ceremonies never fully satisfies anyone who watches. They disapprove of the nominees. They disapprove of the winners. They disapprove of the clothes. This is as true of the Best Actress Oscar as it is the Nobel peace Prize. The only real reason people seem to watch these broadcasts is to find an excuse to be angry.* No one, for instance, ever loses an Oscar. They were robbed. There was politicking. Bribes. It's bordering on lunacy to assume a group of six thousand independent voters came to a different conclusion about a subjective topic than you did. There had to be some kind of treachery. It's an understandable phenomenon. Getting angry is one of the most fun things a person can do, and if the anger is self-righteous? Hoo daddy! That's the kind of high that'll keep you going to the grave. More than that, unlike a jerk professor of unhelpful cab driver, your Oscar complaints are universally understood. Even if they don't reach buff or fanatic levels, everybody loves the movies. They're among our culture's biggest shared experiences. When you tell your friends your opinion on the results, they all know what you're talking about. It's gratifying. I shouldn't try to seem like I'm passing judgment on the people who get wrapped up in awards - I definitely fall victim to it myself. For example, a win for George Clooney - the dictionary definition of "mediocre" - this year over the great performances from Brad Pitt, Jean Dujardin, and especially Gary Oldman (I'm not immune to the clutches of fandom) will put me into a rage. I'll post angry Facebook statuses and punch my pillow and hold my breath until I turn blue. I know it's preposterous. I also know it's inescapable. (Of course, a win for Oldman would make me giddy for as much as days to come. The sensation does undeniably run both ways)
* This is no longer entirely true. The popularity of Ricky Gervais as Golden Globe MC, especially last year, has led to agroup of people saying they watch the ceremony for the host. This is usually accompanied with the same superior sneer people have when telling you they see the Superbowl, "but only for the commercials."
But other than on the night itself, do the Oscars have an impact? Have they ever? Well certainly in the industry they do. As far as the good people of Hollywood are concerned, the Oscars are a major career boost, distributors and studio chiefs going to absurd lengths to boost their hordes (the Weinstein brothers, Harvey especially, may be the best known example of this). And they can be. The main reason I'm happy when someone I admire wins is for just this season. If an actor, a win almost guarantees better roles in the future (a notable and tragic exception to this is F. Murray Abraham, who had a few quick years of stardom and then very quickly faded away). If a writer or director, their future projects have a bigger chance of getting made. This is a big deal, especially for as self-congraulatory an event as an awards show. But as for the importance they have on the average viewer, I have to say I'm skeptical. I don't mean on the night itself, that we've looked at already. But outside that. Think of your favorite actor / director / whoever. Do you know how many Oscars they have? If so, was that a factor in coming to like them? Can you even remember the last time you were told "Let's see / rent that one - it won an Oscar!" I certainly haven't. Not from myself, my friends, my parents. Not even from the video store clerks. A movie may be marketed as "award winning," but very rarely consumed as such. So unless I'm mistaken, other than the ceremony itself, this is a serious emperor's new clothes situation.
Speaking of awards - and here I guess I seriously undercut my attempts to seem above it all - I feel I have to digress to mention that the BAFTAs, the United Kingdom's own film academy, has chosen to give this years lifetime achievement award to John Hurt. This (2012) is Hurt's fiftieth year in the movies, and for most of that time has been one of the most consistently top notch actors, as well as one of the most prolific (about 175 films, if imdb is to be trusted). Last year alone he appeared four - the final Harry Potter, Immortals, Melancholia, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (out now in Empire theatres everywhere!) - a diverse enough group to ensure most cinema goers saw him at least once (though those of us in the know made sure we saw every one). Harry Potter probably will end up being his widest exposure, but he really has, particularly in the 70s, broken a lot of ground. Quentin Crisp in The Naked Civil Servant (1975), one of the first sympathetic portrayals of a gay man on screen. Caligula in I, Claudius (1976), the high point of what was already the high point of television. Kane in Alien (1979), the focus of one of the most memorable scenes in film history, and wouldn't dream of ruining for you. The title role in The Elephant Man (1980). I could go on and on and on, we haven't even touched on most of my favorites. John Hurt is not my favorite actor, but in terms the importance and flair he brought to his industry, he's undoubtedly the most deserving candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXcl-AE8TA <- Here is a brief, recent clip of Hurt promoting a play he was in. Just listen to that voice.
Stay cool,
Simon
No comments:
Post a Comment