I had planned to write a full-blown rant about the numerous blind spots and errors of judgment in this morning’s Academy Award nominations, but at this point I’m too tired and resigned to summon up the necessary fire.
It also occurred to me that I should take some inspiration from the character at the heart of the snub that personally pained me the most: Poppy, the eternal optimist embodied by the luminescent Sally Hawkins in arguably the year’s finest performance. When she loses her bicycle at the start of “Happy-Go-Lucky,” she laughs it off and moves onward. I suspect her reaction to this morning’s disappointing news would be much the same — as ours should be as well. It’s not life or death. It’s the Oscars.
Nonetheless, given that I’m nowhere near as well-adjusted as Poppy is, I can’t quite let this morning’s proceedings go by without commenting on the major opportunity that the Academy sadly and short-sightedly let slip through its fingers. And yes, I am talking about “The Dark Knight.”
As I have stated before on these pages, I’m not one of the “Dark Knight” die-hards. While a stunning feat in many areas, I thought it had some critical flaws in its narrative construction and (occasionally) its technical execution that kept it at a comfortable distance from my own list of the year’s ten best. In short, I’m not a fanboy.
And yet, I’m dismayed that “The Dark Knight” has been denied a berth in the races for Best Picture and, even more surprisingly, Best Director.
Why? Because I recognise that Christopher Nolan’s film represents a rare confluence — alchemy, even — of achievements that only comes along once in the bluest of moons. Here we had a populist-leaning entertainment that was formally and thematically ambitious, grandly entertaining and strikingly beautiful, a showcase for both inspired performing and the finest craftsmanship the industry had to offer.
“The Dark Knight” meant something to people; whether accidentally or not, it took on a zeitgeisty appeal that had a wide range of audiences contemplating its political resonances. And in a cinematic landscape that rarely finds occasion to overlap the two, it united mass audiences and broadsheet critics in their approval. It was, in short, a bloody miracle.
So when an industry body like the Academy chooses to sideline such a work in favour of hermetic, middlebrow (not to mention less broadly acclaimed) fare like “Frost/Nixon” or “The Reader,” it both sets a curious benchmark for industry achievement, and sends a frankly hostile message to the public they are supposed to be serving. It doesn’t matter to us that you loved it, they’re saying. We still weren’t comfortable with it.
I’m by no means advocating blindly populist voting. For my part, I couldn’t care less whether the Oscar telecast’s ratings need a boost or not. Cinematic excellence and ingenuity should always remain the foremost of criteria for inclusion, and it’s the failure to acknowledge that that allows for such atrocities as “Mamma Mia!” receiving a Best British Film nomination at the BAFTA Awards.
But “The Dark Knight” had the credible critical chops to compete with the best of them. So, to an even greater extent, did “WALL-E,” a film celebrated by multiple critics’ circles as the year’s finest, and one that would have made an equally respectable (and for me, more personally pleasing) Best Picture nominee. Both films inventively expanded the possibilities of their respective genres and/or mediums, yet the Academy voters either believe that commercial success is its own reward, or more likely, still cling to the notion that adult-skewing drama is the most noble of storytelling forms.
What gives? In the past, the Academy hasn’t been afraid to reward broadly populist works, even ones whose commercial achievements signficantly outweighed their aesthetic ones. Passionate public support carried “Love Story” all the way to the Best Picture derby in 1970, as it did for “Ghost” 20 years later. Something has changed, with the voters now looking so stubbornly inward as they fill out their ballots that they appear to have forgotten who’s watching.
It would be one thing had they gone to the opposite extreme, filling the five slots with the year’s most challenging, boundary-pushing work, perhaps even looking to the arthouse and the international scene for inspiration. But they plainly haven’t: four of the films nominated represent comparatively safe, staid, traditional “awards fare” that, however finely executed in some cases, doesn’t have much to say to modern culture (or modern cinema, for that matter).
The fifth, meanwhile, will surely romp to victory on the strength of its visual energy, quirkiness and semblance of connection to the present day — and, in this field, deservedly so. But the question remains: if “Slumdog Millionaire” can be rewarded for its evident contemporaneity and broad audience appeal, why can’t “The Dark Knight”?
Comments
72 responses to “It’s not just the fanboys”
Because, as Sasha Stone at Awardsdaily put it, the lead character of Slumdog is not a man in a batsuit.
Very well argued. I agree.
They missed the boat, period.
I liked the Dark Knight quite a bit. That said, I don’t think you’re going to find many people looking back wistfully on the days when films like Ghost or Love Story received best picture nods. I don’t see how people filling out their ballots based solely on their own personal opinions is somehow a step in the wrong direction.
The Dark Knight is not among my top five films of the year. Therefore, I’m not upset at it not getting a nomination. Zeitgeist? Who cares?
FUCK THE OSCARS!
Very well said. I am still shocked. I am still appalled. The film was robbed. I agree with Shirley’s comment.
You say that it isn’t on your Top Ten, but it should be a nominee? That is crazy.
It is better than The Reader, but it isn’t one of the five best films of the year. Unlike other snubs, the Academy did not screw it up too bad here.
I just couldn’t believe it when I watched them announce the nominees this morning. I knew something was going wrong when Nolan’s name wasn’t coming up for directors.
The Academy screwed up. Big time. And it’s going to show in their ratings and number of viewers on February 22nd.
Guy: Your post was eloquent, articulate, and spot-on.
Box office is NOT the reason why The Dark Knight should have been nominated. If that were the case, Star Wars Episode I (*shudder*) should have earned a Best Picture nod.
It isn’t a matter of subjectivity either. Whether one liked or disliked The Dark Knight isn’t really the issue: it’s that The Dark Knight was a mammoth success on more than purely commercial levels. If The Dark Knight isn’t the model for the penultimate Hollywood summer blockbuster, I don’t know what is.
For these reasons, The Dark Knight deserved recognition from the Academy. Moreover, it is for these reasons that snubbing the man at the helm of this colossus, Christopher Nolan, is a borderline insult.
Wanna know when I stopped caring about the Oscars?
Ha… ha… ah hahaha… Today.
I will never pay attention to the awards race for the rest of my life. I’m done. Forever. The exclusion of The Dark Knight means these awards are worth nothing.
The Reader? Why… SO… STUPID!
“I don’t see how people filling out their ballots based solely on their own personal opinions is somehow a step in the wrong direction.”
Alynch, that’s not what we are saying, at least the way you put it. We (the many who feel TDK was snubbed) see the voting, in not only this instance, but others as well, as either one of two things, with both of them being essentially wrong.
1. Academy members stuck a label on this film and have left it there all of these months. While they may love the film, they feel that if they vote it in the top five that they compromise their status as being serious film goers. They may have qualms about the film getting a picture nomination because they feel that it lessens the art of film and/or diminishes the, again for lack of a better term, seriousness of the Academy as a hole; almost as if they are afraid that thirty years from now, some people (most likely people who don’t like the film) say, “well you can’t take anything the Oscars do seriously because, my God, they put a comic-book superhero movie in Best Pic race.
Clearly I think you can see the problems in this viewpoint.
or….
2. They just didn’t like the film enough, at least enough to put in in the top five. Sure, this one is much more truthful, and as you say, there is technically nothing wrong with it, but many people (including myself) completely fail to grasp how the majority of voters in a field as vast as the AMPAS didn’t fink TDK to be among the five best of the year. And what is even more of a travesty, as Guy pointed out, is that they didn’t even give Nolan a director nod. Okay, say the films had some narrative problems if you will, that’s fine, but I think you are very hard-pressed to find, in my opinion, two or three better directing jobs this year, much less five. So basically, to sum up, we question the true validity of the Academy in how they view movies.
And Guy, as I’m sure you will, I doubt that this time, or even the next few weeks will be the last time we rant about TDK getting snubbed.
And to the people who say that it got eight or however many nominations, that that is enough, and that we and the people involved with the film should just be happy that it got what it got, well then that proves the existence of that label that I referred to earlier.
And I also am not a fanboy. I’m fucking sick of every time I defend this movie that that accusation is placed on me and others.
James D: My own Top Ten is a deeply personal affair, which I don’t expect everyone to share in. While I’d love to see “The Class” nominated for Best Picture, I can hardly get outraged when it doesn’t.
I can, however, appreciate and acknowledge a film as culturally significant and widely beloved as “The Dark Knight.” It may not have been one of my favourite films of the year, but it was still unquestionably the film of the year. There’s a difference.
ALynch: You really think they were filling out their ballots according to their personal opinions? I’m not so sure.
I have to disagree, James D. This was firmly a nail (albeit not the final one) in the coffin for the Academy as far as its general relevance. Once upon a time, the Oscar nods were big news across the networks, papers, and Internets. Now the Oscar nods are nothing more than news ticker material. I’m sorry, but it just makes zero sense to me when you have that rare film that resonates with critics, the film industry, and the general public (so, by my count, those three groups include, hmm, EVERYONE), you give it the boot for a film that failed on all three counts. We get it, Academy, important movies are, well, important, but out of the arthouse industry or the blockbuster industry, tell me, which one took the biggest leaps in the art of cinema during the year 2008? Which industry decided to reiterate comments already made on well-established but hackneyed ancient topics (the Nazis, political corruption in Washington, the tragedy of growing old (or young)) while the other raised eyebrows with its profound, new, fresh insight on relevant topics of the here and now (terrorism, anarchy, obesity, technological advancement, global warming)?
No, the Academy failed on all counts here. Sure, there were still inspired choices to be had throughout the nominee list (In Bruges screenplay, WALL-E record for most categories for an animated movie, not bowing to Clint for the sake of Clint), but ultimately, when it came down to what actually gets remembered in history, the Academy could have made a choice that would have made film historians of future decades say “Ah yes, this was a landmark point in film history, when the Academy nominated a film that stood as a tentpole and as a sign of the times.”
Instead, epic fail.
As much as you make like TDK, the Oscars are only about the voter’s preferences, and nothing else. There are no right or wrong nominations.
I really agree with you, man. I’m a big Batman fan and loved The Dark Knight and had a strong feeling it would get nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director, and Best Picture. I honestly thought it would get those, even just to get nominated and not win, would been ok. Especially Best Director, Chris should have got that, no question. He was robbed. He worked 2 years on this movie, and put a lot into it. It became the 2nd Highest Grossing Movie of All Time!!! 2nd!!!!! That is huge. And critics guilds, and audiences loved it. He revolutionized fillmmaking, too. He shot all around the world and shot scenes with IMAX cameras. That has never been done before. Now Micheal Bay is using it for Transformers: Revenge of The Fallen and Jon Faverau is looking to use it for Iron Man 2. Christopher Nolan did that. He started this new feature. That was him and The Dark Knight. But, he doesn’t get honored. What the heck!?
And it really should have got Best Picture. I was very sad and upset this morning, when I watched that stupid announcement. I was so flabbergasted it only got the Supporting Actor nod for Heath and a lot of the technical awards. But that was it. Wow, how stupid and ignorant of the Academy. It was more than just your average loud, brainless, no substance actiony, superhero movie. It was more, so much, much more. But they chose to ignore that. They would have got their biggest ratings ever, USA Today took that poll, and people said they would tune in and watch and see it hopefully win.
It’s just wicked sad. And it lost The Reader?!!! Really? I agree with people that call it a Nazi porn movie. It looks really stupid, depressing, and boring. Kate Winslet is a good actress and attractive, but I don’t we don’t need to see her naked for a whole movie. Even though she is pretty hot. But I have no desire to see it. No desire. This will go down as one the biggest snubs in Oscar history. At least I know The Dark Knight is a better movie than this garbage. I’m hoping Benjamin Button or Frost/Nixon wins best Picture. I don’t want Milk, The Reader, or Slumdog Millionaire get it. Slumdog looks overrated. And either David Fincher or Ron Howard for Best Director.
Good going Oscars, you did a tremendously, suckey job. Here’s to this year’s telecast going down the toilet. You guys should be so proud of yourselves. You keep snubbing, and all of America will stop watching.
I guess we make our Top 10s differently, Guy. The Wrestler and Synecdoche moved me, so I would have them on my Best Picture ballot if I had one.
And Hans, I think you are way off with your idea of lost relevance. If the Academy went ahead and nominated a blockbuster next year, all would be forgotten. These are the people who allowed the third Lord of the Rings to win over the profound Lost in Translation. Titanic had the same effect on people as The Dark Knight, but did it deserve its wins?
Andy,
“At least I know The Dark Knight is a better movie than this garbage. ”
Andy, I agree that TDK is a better movie, but I thought that The Reader was a fairly good movie though. But that’s not my point and what I am going to discuss. Its elementary remarks like that that give TDK supporters bad credibility. It’s fine that you didn’t like The Reader, but please give a little more educated and discerning remarks about the film than you gave.
I don’t find The Dark Knight snub nearly as bad as the Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind snub… but that is just me.
James D.:
But, yet, you know that years later if neither of those movies had won, people would still be becrying the Academy for not choosing the film that resonated everywhere, much like the choice of Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Yes, Shakespeare in Love was the “better” film, as Lost in Translation or Good Will Hunting were over Titanic and LOTR, but I think that the “Best” Picture needs to be the one that is the sum of its parts, satisfying everyone. Not just the general public. Not just the critics. Not just the filmmakers. Everyone. There is no point in serving the best entree at a meal if no one will eat from it.
Granted, the Saving Private Ryan snub was at the tail end of a decade full of epic or blockbuster Best Picture wins and nods (Titanic, Schindler’s List, Braveheart, The Fugitive, Ghost, Forrest Gump), so the Academy understandably may have wanted to award some smaller-scale fare.
But the situation is now reversed. I have appreciated a decade thus far of intriguing Best Picture choices for great movies that I otherwise would not have seen. Wouldn’t The Dark Knight or WALL-E have logically signaled a new direction for the film industry, one where quality films and commercial appeal could coexist peacefully in one film?
You are right, Hans, and we are not necessarily on different sides. I just look at the Oscars as the only thing that keeps good drama from disappearing altogether. Why should a studio waste time on these efforts if there is the same recognition for well-made blockbusters?
We all agree that Benjamin Button is flawed, but if wasn’t for the Academy Awards, would it have had its budget? I just worry that the Academy would become a version of the People’s Choice Awards if it became the norm to nominate blockbusters.
It would have been a smart move to nominate The Dark Knight. I thought it was better than The Reader and Slumdog Millionaire. I preferred Button and have not seen Milk or Frost/Nixon yet. But I don’t think that this is the atrocity that people are making it out to be, especially in comparison to other mistakes.
The Academy has been proven wrong by history several times in the past. Ordinary People over Raging Bull? Who remembers that film? Rocky over Taxi Driver is a joke.
And that is what I fear. The nomination of Juno last year was ridiculous, and to this day I don’t know how someone can sit through the entire thing.
The Nolan snub is what really bugs me. I honestly didn’t think TDK would sneak in for Best Picture (the Academy is hardly ever that cool) but man, I thought they’d at least give Nolan his due for helming (masterfully) one of the biggest films of all time.
Now, before someone bites my head off, let me preface this with the following information:
1) I mean this purely in good fun
2) I would probably be considered a Dark Knight fanboy, and I’m definitely disappointed that it got snubbed
To everyone who says they are giving up on the Oscars forever because of this year’s nominations, I can’t help but ask…
Why so serious?
I absolutely have to agree, “The Dark Knight” is more than the sum of its parts. It was THE movie of the year and Chris Nolan’s omission is just senseless. His obvious skills and bravura filmmaking are in finest form here. His guiding hand was behind every decision involved in the making, from writing, to his inspired casting of Heath and capturing that now iconic performance. He should take solace if need be in the fact that he’s in the finest company of artists who were not anointed by the Academy (in any given year), and that his efforts were fully embraced by most critics, guilds, and most importantly, the paying public.
It’s sad because all these years we have been waiting for a big summer blockbuster to come along that could be nominated for best picture and join the likes of “Jaws”, “Star Wars” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. The Academy had the perfect opportunity and then… well, they went for safe.
I’m never one to go on about “irrelevance”, but did the Oscars, today, become irrelevant? I didn’t think “The Dark Knight” was perfect, but it deserved to be nominated as it was a cornerstone of cinema in 2008.
It’s as if they don’t WANT people to watch their show, isn’t it? This will probably do them more harm than “Crash”.
Adam Smith:
Well, for me, I can’t say I’m giving up on the Oscars forever because inevitably I will always want to find out how my future favorite films fare with end-of-the-year kudos. This year, had TDK gotten a good haul of major nods, then I, a college student, would have made the effort to find a friend who lives in the area locally and make a night of the whole ceremony, maybe have some pizza, that sort of thing. Now I don’t feel that the it’s worth the effort because no film struck me this year more than The Dark Knight, and while I enjoyed other nominees in various categories, I’ll be content with following the live blog and watching the YouTube clip of Heath’s win. Hell, if it’s on in the rec room, I’ll watch, but that’s my story.
“ALynch: You really think they were filling out their ballots according to their personal opinions? I’m not so sure”
Guy, I absolutely believe that. I can’t imagine any scenario where a voter would honestly think that The Dark Knight is one of the five best films he or she has seen this year, and yet choose not to vote for it. Maybe I’m naive, but I just can’t comprehend somebody doing that. And if you don’t believe that, then I must ask what you meant by this sentence:
“Something has changed, with the voters now looking so stubbornly inward as they fill out their ballots that they appear to have forgotten who’s watching.”
I read this as you saying that you wished voters would stop valuing their personal opinions above all else and consider things like the cultural zeitgeist.
The one reason that I enjoy the TDK snub so much is that all the fans start saying no its not due to the popularity but the critical acclaim. But how can they fail to overlook the tremendous acclaim for Wall-E with nearly every critic muttering the word masterpiece. It was much more critically celebrated than TDK in almost every respect. Atleast Guy mentions it, but all the other people, not a single mention.
Thats the first indication that the fans of TDK are just sore that their film was snubbed and that their argument is entirely lop-sided and has no bearing.
The Dark Knight snub bothers me too. A good bit actually. But it’s not as much that it got left out as it is what it got left out FOR. If The Wrestler or WALL-E had been that film over TDK, I would’ve been just as happy. However, when they put a subpar melodrama with a redundant theme and mediocre critical appeal in there, that ticks me off.
The Dark Knight was not more critically celebrated. At best you could say they are tied.
You wanna talk critical acclaim for the 2 films. Wall-E by far has the best reviews of the year. Happy-Go-Lucky, Milk and other films have better reviews than TDK.
http://moviecitynews.com/awards/2009/top_ten/00scoreboard.htm
In the popular Top 10 tallys, Wall-E is No.1. TDK is no.2 but I don’t buy these guys opinion coz they are much more skewed towards mainstream Oscar movies.
Then Wall-E has won 5 best Picture awards, TDK has won 1 that too from Austin I think or wherever which has 8 voting members.
Then finally, the most decisive of all. All the critics poll, The IndiWire’s Critics poll, FilmComment’s Critics Poll & Village Voice’s critics poll. In these polls, Wall-E was in the top 5 all time, along with films like Happy-Go-Lucky, Wendy & Lucy, Synecdoche, Waltz With Bashir, let The Right One In, A Christmas Tale, Milk, Paranoid Park, My Winnipeg, Hunger, Rachel getting Married, Man On Wire.
TDK (or for that matter all 5 best Picture nominees), failed to make the top 20 in each poll.
There you have it, if you take the average across all critics, Wall-E is the most celebrated film of the year.
And I still don’t hear a word about it being snubbed.
FWIW, I am disappointed about the WALL-E snub as well, but I figured the Academy could resist since there was an Animated feature category, just like they couldn’t bring themselves to triple-nominate Waltz With Bashir for Animated Feature, Foreign-Language, and Documentary (although, as I understand it, it was not eligible for the latter).
i totally agree with red_wine, i also think WALL*E was superior than DARK KNIGHT in many ways and almost as popular.
i think DARK KNIGHT was more flawed than any of the 5 best film nominees, and not because it was bold, risky and very hard to do, makes it more worthy of an nomination.
CHRISTOPHER NOLAN should have been nominated, but i am more than fine with DARK KNIGHT snub
i do understand the attitude of all the fanboys [and the closeted ones] acting so jealous and completely disqualifying movies you even haven’t seen or that don’t appeal to your fanboy / geeky personal taste
don’t you think out of the 6,000+ members, ranging from young DAKOTA FANNING to old CLINT EASTWOOD, wouldn’t prefer something that not only appeals to their personal tastes but with what they are looking for in american cinema in the bear future?
finally, i don’t believe even a little that all you DARK KNIGHT fans will be ok with just the nomination, i’m completely sure that if it had been nominated and lost to any other films we would read the exact same comments we are reading now, completely disrespecting a really fine film.
You said what needed to be said, and very thoughtfully so, Guy. The fact of the matter is that the opinions of a largely exclusive, and apparently insulated group of people shouldn’t matter, but sadly they do, and to a lot of people, as evidenced by the strong emotions expressed in this website alone. That such a group decides to shirk that responsibility by ignoring the films that do not simply entertain but also attempt to seriously address society (and I refer to “WALL-E” as well as “the Dark Knight” here), explains in volumes the AMPAS and the Academy Awards’ continuing fade into irrelevance in the eyes of that very same society.
If I had to make one note about your post though Guy, I’d have to disagree with your assertion that only “Slumdog Millionaire” has “much to say to modern culture”. Certainly “Milk” classifies as “awards fare”, and may arguably be “safe”, but I think it’s highly relevant simply for directly addressing what has become the most pressing civil rights issue of our times. The film subtly evokes important parallels with today, be they disconcerting, as in between Prop 6 in 1978 and the Prop 8 of 2008; or inspiring, as with the symbolic leader who battles discrimination and invokes hope to rally people around a civic cause. For such reasons “Milk” is surely at least slightly contemporary, and personally for me, rises above “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”, “Frost/Nixon” and “The Reader” in the Best Picture pool.
Let’s just see which one is considered better in a few more years shall we. If you have been looking at this site any lately, you’ll see with John’s post that a tide has suddenly shifted in favor of There Will Be Blood as being the best film of last year already, much sooner than I expected. Likewise for Zodiac. These two, plus Into The Wild are the three films that I predicted would be considered the best of ’07. So wait a couple of years.
There Will Be Blood was always the best film of last year, no arguments there. Also Zodiac was my favorite film from last year.
This site will back-up everything you and I are saying.
http://www.theyshootpictures.com/21stcentury_films1-50.htm
We again agree on something atleast. I cited those poles as definitive coz those were the very polls that crowned There Will Be Blood as the best film of last year followed by Zodiac and then No Country, 4 Months, I’m Not There & Jesse James not far behind. Now atleast you must agree that those polls have huge credibility.
And this year they think Wall-E, Red ballon, Christmas Tale, Happy-Go-Lucky and Wendy & Lucy are the best films of the year and it’ll stay that way, and those films will gain a lot more traction as time passes. Wall-E is already regarded as a modern classic of cinema.
And I again repeat TDK, Slumdog, Frost/Nixon, Ben Button were all considered unworthy of their praise.
Perhaps once all the immense buzz dies down, you will see TDK for what it is, a very good film but there are far far far better movies around.
Dear Lord, Guy, you essentially said exactly what I’ve been trying to say, in a far more eloquent fashion than I am currently capable. I just don’t have the energy to engage in the “you’re a fanboy”/”you’re a hater” discourse – it’s so asinine – so I’ll lazily let you put words in my mouth.
And red_wine, to continue from our previous discussion, I guess we’re just going to have to agree to disagree, as the cliche goes. However, I do want to ask if you are overgeneralizing when you say you haven’t heard a peep about “Wall-E” being snubbed, because I most certainly mentioned “Wall-E” being snubbed. This might shock you, but I also think “Wall-E” was a better film than “TDK”. The reason why people are more outraged over the “TDK” snub than the “Wall-E” snub was because “Wall-E” always a dark horse to get nominated at best, while “TDK” was actually a legitimate contender (or we were lead to believe it was, anyway).
All I can say by way of consolation to the billions and billions of fans of TDK that I’m sure also come from the far corners of Pluto, next time choose a better film to dock your chips behind. “Film of the decade” jesus christ. It would not even enter the top 50.
“Film of the decade.” Who are you talking to? There’s not a single comment here that called it the film of the decade. Fanboy this, fanboy that, whatever, I give up.
Anyway, on a somewhat different tangent: for those who are wondering how people could possibly question the motives of our esteemed Academy voters, maybe you’ve never read the annual EW feature where voters are asked to share their ballots and justify their choices.
Here is Exhibit A:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20007870_20164475_20178177,00.html
2008: We have an actress saying that she sometimes votes just to block other nominees from winning. We have a screenwriter who voted for Amy Ryan despite NOT SEEING THE FILM. We have an executive who immediately dismissed “TWWB” and “NCFOM” for being “too depressing.”
Here’s Exhibit B:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20007870_20007899_20011925,00.html
2007: We have a voter saying that she didn’t for “Dreamgirls” because “it’s unnatural for people to break into song in the middle of a movie.” We have a screenwriter who didn’t vote for “Pan’s Labyrinth” because he has “trouble with children’s fantasy movies.” (What the fuck does that even mean?) We have an actor who admits that he votes in the acting categories based on how much he liked the film itself. (That’s what “Best Picture” is for, numbnuts.)
Here’s Exhibit C:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,592966,00.html
2003: A producer admits that he votes for films that he “wants recognized” and not films that he “knows will be recognized.” A screenwriter doesn’t vote for “Finding Nemo” for Original Screenplay because he “finds it difficult to connect to dialogue not spoken by human beings.” And read what the interviewed director said about “Lost in Translation.” (I promise you that Sofia Coppola has more talent in her pinky than you do in your entire body, you fucking hack.)
I can’t find the links for other Oscar seasons, but I know that they exist, and that they are just as horrifying.
So yes, I can believe that Academy voters make their decisions based on criteria other than choosing the best five films of the year. I can believe it quite easily, actually.
As I say in the piece, I agree that “WALL-E” would have been a worthy populist nominee too, but I focused the discussion focused on “The Dark Knight” because it was (to me and many other Oscar pundits) the more surprising of the omissions.
Moreover, the “WALL-E” snub brings up a separate and substantial issue — the Academy’s bias against an entire medium of film. I only have energy for one outrage at a time!
red_wine,
please, I’m begging you, get some new material. Every single time you cite something it’s either the damn indiewire poll or theyshootpictures.com.
You’re like a cartoon that repeats the same thing over and over again.
You can say that one website is skewed towards Mainstream Oscar fare, but I can also say indiewire is skewed towards art-house fare… I can also definitely say The Dark Knight is the best film of the year (if not the decade, which I still say is Memento but it’s not far behind)…and guess what? It’s a freaking opinion.
The Reader deserved a Best Picture nomination? Over The Dark Knight? Over WALL-E?
Not according to the majority of critics.
http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml
TDK didn’t deserve but WALL-E did, that’s really all there is to it and it sucks they didn’t choose WALL-E but I’m perfectly fine with TDK, which was let’s face it kind of a mess, not getting in.
Here are my reactions (specifically how the hell The Reader could get a Best Pic nom): http://thefilmstage.com/2009/01/22/the-reader/
Kyle, I know I repeat myself often & I guess that site probably owes half its hits to me but I can only ever counter the same repeated claims with same repeated arguments.
I have no problem with people’s opinions, why should I. But when people start pointing to the critical acclaim of TDK as the reason why it should be nominated, it gets me started. As if TDK is the only ever movie to get critical acclaim.
If people say, TDK should have been nominated because they thought it was a good movie, there’s nothing much I can say. But if they say it should have been nominated because it got critical acclaim, 20 other movies will raise their hands up & TDK’s claim will be all but nullified.
The same way we cant fault 6000 people for their opinions. Its not like they are obliterating the 1000 movies not nominated for best picture. Your film stays the same, love it as best you can.
Look, there’s absolutely no arguing TDK’s broad significance in modern cinema. Period. Red_wine – it’s not simply about critical acclaim. It’s the impact and resonance that acclaim had on our overall culture. There’s simply no way to argue against that. When you combine its impact with its technical, acting, and storytelling acheivements, there is absolutely no doubt it should be recognized as one of the top 5 films of the year. Even though I personally think Ben Button is completely overrrated, and a straight rip-off of Forrest Gump, I still understand why the Academy put it in. The same goes for TDK getting snubbed. You may not like the film, but you have to admit it as a glaring misrepresentation of 2008 cinema by it not getting in.
And, by the way, not putting Chris Nolan in the best director race is a complete slap in the face, and boarderline criminal. It’s Almost more ridiculous than TDK being snubbed for Best Pic. The Academy has no relevance.
What cultural impact are we talking about here? Have people started painting their faces? Or has the American society changed in some imperceptible way after watching this film that I have failed to notice? Or movies will never be the same again. Did I miss any technique that this film invented. Yes I know there were some I-Max portions but anything more substantial?
I personally think that Wendy & Lucy and especially Happy-Go-Lucky were far greater directorial achievements than TDK.
C’mon, red_wine. You know exactly what most of us are talking about. Let’s put it this way; If you were to put together a time capsule of 2008 cinema (which, in theory, the Academy is supposed to represent), TDK would be the film at the top of that capsule. It was one of the most critically acclaimed, talked about films of the last TEN YEARS, let alone ’08.When you look back at 2008 in 50 years, Frost/Nixon and The Reader will live in obscurity. TDK will be recognized for the cinematic, genre-bending acheivement it is. Wether you’re a fan of the film or not, I just don’t see how you don’t get that.
Two other films I can think of that had this tye of cultural impact (and were nominated for Best Pic, incidentally) are Jaws and Star Wars. The Academy recognized their impact, and cinematic acheivements, and rewarded those pictures. It’s the same thing.
I agree I don’t get it. TDK wouldn’t make my top 10 even in this weak year. It did not even make Guy’s top 10 & many other people’s. To me TDK is just like Spider-man 2, a very good movie with tons of money and loads of critical acclaim. I still think that film is much more well-rounded and with less flaws than TDK, but that film never caught on it seems in the way TDK has. I seriously don’t get why everyone loves TDK to death & why it has sparked off this huge fanaticism nor will I probably get it. I’ll never understand that of all the films that could have been chosen for worship, why was it that this film was chosen. But anyways I admire your all conquering passion for the movie.
And, if it means anything, on Time’s cover for their special ’08 review issue, there were pictures of the Clintons, the Obamas, and other important events of the year. You know what picture was right in the middle of the collage?
The Joker…”Here’s my card.”
“Have people started painting their faces?” Since when does a movie being iconic mean that people start copying everything the movie does?
Hans – exactly my point…In Time’s review of ’08, there’s TDK.
red_wine – Do my other examples hold any weight (Jaws/Star Wars)? Because that’s the cultural impact I’m talking about. Again, it’s not about liking the film or not, it’s about recognizing its impact. You keep going back to your personal feelings about the movie being good or not. That’s not the point…