It’s not really a question anymore, is it?
I submit that, quite possibly, it never was. Unfortunately, the shrieking in some quarters this year, under cover of “fighting the good fight,” has led to a mocking at the very notion that any film other than the critics’ champion could win the Oscar for Best Picture. It’s been unnecessarily nasty in that way.
At the end of the day, it really goes beyond critics vs. the Academy, though. It comes down to micro vs. macro, I think. The critics organizations are a bunch of tiny groups of people. Get 5,000, 6,000, 10,000 people together, the odds begin to favor “The King’s Speech.” It’s simply the film that survives the scrutiny of a broader spectrum of opinion. “Most generally agreeable.” It always was.
The unfortunate thing now — and if you’re watching, some are already doing an about face on their own positive opinion of Tom Hooper’s film — is that the fallout will be insufferable. Suddenly “The King’s Speech” will be a blight on Academy history and that talking point will be regurgitated ad nauseam. It already is. And that’s just sad, because it’s a very good film that doesn’t deserve to be taken to task in the wake of another film’s failed (and overstated) awards season expectations.
And “The Social Network,” a pristine film that succeeds quite wonderfully at nailing the goals for which it aims, never deserved the burden of having that kind of hyperbole thrust upon it in the first place. It started with a sexy Peter Travers quote that spawned a talking point bonanza. But there was never any “there” there. You can’t just will it to be. We won’t know what film defined this generation for quite some time, I’m guessing.
But we live in a world where a film can’t just be what it is. Yes, we cover the awards season here, a time of year that has most certainly yielded that unfortunate state. But I’ll go back to last week’s column: The Academy is just a group of people with something to say on the matter. And so are you.
Following wins from the PGA, DGA and SAG (where the film took the ensemble prize last night), “The King’s Speech” is set to run the table. Some feel like there is still a chance for David Fincher to be rewarded on Oscar night, even if it’s admittedly a much smaller chance than it was 48 hours ago. But I wonder what logical reasoning there is to that. This isn’t a case of “Chicago,” I don’t think. And it’s barely a case of “Traffic.”
At the end of the day, The Weinstein Company could net seven, maybe even eight Oscars for its pony. More would seem a stretch, but who knows? And it has played things out perfectly. There’s a reason the film went wider in theaters this weekend (and did quite well at the box office, yet again). It’s classic long-play Harvey. And it all started at that first, wildly successful screening in Telluride. The film simply continues to be the one that brings audiences to their feet.
Meanwhile, the whole playing field, same as it ever was. The films that live in your veins as film lovers — the “great” cinema — they aren’t meant for the Oscar race. They’re meant to be discovered, entirely, on their own merits. They don’t need the Academy — or, certainly, a group of critics — to tell you they’re great. They need only be what they are. And shame on anyone who wants to disrespect and begrudge another film its awards success when none of it really matters in the first place.
That having been said, I’ll submit a shrewd comment from reader Samuel over the weekend:
For a bit of perspective – The King’s Speech is the fourth highest rated film in the Oscar ten on Metacritic. Behind Network, Toy Story 3 and Winter’s Bone. Its 88 is, from memory…a very good score in the scheme of previous [Best Picture] winners. It’s better than “Slumdog,” “The Departed,” “Chicago” and “Million Dollar Baby.”
“The King’s Speech” is no dog. It’s not “Masterpiece Theater” in some pejorative sense. It’s not some embarrassing “Around the World in 80 Days” call that makes the Academy look foolish. And the Academy is not missing the ball by leaning in that direction, not least of all because “The Social Network,” with its classic storytelling, just doesn’t represent the new guard, in my opinion, nor is it an undeniable new classic in the mold of “Raging Bull” or what have you.
I was invited onto Film School Rejects’ weekly podcast yesterday to discuss the Oscar season, and Cole Abaius asked me, “Why do we care so much about the Oscars? Why do we keep coming back?” My submission was that it’s the desire for validation. We want our opinions reflected in what is supposed to be the grand awards exhibition of the year. And so, some would have AMPAS rise to a certain “standard.” But that standard is inherently subjective, too. And I can only imagine that desire for validation is what leads to such passion about these things.
But here’s the point: You don’t need that validation. You shouldn’t even yearn for it. Get in on the joke and live to watch another day.
The Contenders section is pretty close to what it was in the wake of the Oscar nominations last week. There have been some tweaks here and there, but there’s not much to say at this point.
[Photos: Columbia Pictures, The Weinstein Company]
Comments
175 responses to “OFF THE CARPET: Game over, man”
Very well put. I’m tired of people acting like The King’s Speech is such an embarrassment and the worst thing to ever be nominated for an Oscar. And I agree things have been “unnecessarily nasty” this year–is it me or does it feel worse than in recent years?
I think it’s been worse.
Do you think Scott Rudin is likely to either step up the FYC game or, quite the opposite, just slowly fade away?
Excellent take on the whole thing, Kristopher. It has been a bit nuts reading Sasha Stone’s meltdown and constant bashing of The King’s Speech in the past couple of days. I feel this is a much more mature, reasonable and yes, valid, approach to the race.
I’m disheartened that my personal favorite, Black Swan, has no chance to win anything but lead actress. And yet I have to keep in mind that my two favorite films of the 2000s, Eternal Sunshine and Mulholland Dr, got completely screwed in terms of Oscars and yet those films have stood the test of time and for me, Oscar or not, Naomi Watts and Kate Winslet gave the best performances of those years. At the end of the day, as you said, it is someone’s opinion, it’s not the end of the world.
Like I and a few other people have said on here, love the films you film and be thnakful for whatever recognition or appreciation they recieve.
Off-topic. I heard a rumor you were privileged enough to read the most recent Batman script. Any chance we could…get a spoiler freeish review or response at some point? Pleeeeeeeeeease!
I find it so objectionable that people consider its a FACT that The Social Network is the best film of the year and somehow Best Picture/Director/Screenplay Oscars are its birthright. Like its not even open to debate anymore or perspective anymore, any film that would win would be winning SOCIAL NETWORK’s award. How perfectly ridiculous all this is.
Where were all these people when something similar happened to Sideways. Beloved critical darling but finally an underdog at the Oscars. But guess what, it wasn’t a cool hip little film, it was very somber and indie. The propensity of people to get attracted like honeybees to a mainstream popular success is one of the hallmarks of our culture.
The King’s Speech is a good film, a very good film even, just like Million Dollar Baby was which the Academy chose, just like The Reader which the Academy nominated.
Drew: That was a total joke. Was having fun with Tweeps.
Raymond: Thanks for the kind words but I do want to be clear this is not aimed at any one person, but a general environment I’ve seen manifest over the last few months.
red_wine LOL–so well put about “birthright”. There’s this weird sense of entitlement that some of the films, not just TSN, have been carrying about this season. I was at the SAG Awards last night and I saw some really bad sports complaining loudly about the results.
i think the academy doesn’t like complicated movies and it’s not that the kings speech is not good, it is good, but i wouldn’t place it as THE best picture of the year. my only wish is that annette bening or nicole kidman win best actress because they were better than portman (who i love but it’s not the best)
I’m firmly on the TSN train and a bit disappointed that this is how it’s going to go, but this whole season is wearing me out more than usual. It seems so angry. I’m ready for the ceremony so we can put all this behind us.
Well said, Kris.
At this point I don’t care what wins Best Picture, because the most affecting movie of the year, Blue Valentine, isn’t even nominated. But I will be really upset if Tom Hooper beats out David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky and the Coen brothers for Best Director.
Well, of course “King’s Speech” isn’t taking Social Network’s Oscar, it’s taking Inception’s Oscar! That being said, though, Bravo to Kris on this even-handed and completely sane write-up. I’m not sure about Hooper’s chances, though; Ang Lee and Ron Howard had to wait a few years to get their due, and Madden and Marshall are still waiting. I still see Fincher winning Director.
Its a good flick. Very good one. Didn’t love it. Didn’t hate it. The Social Network is a better flick, but I suppose its subjective. If the Academy votes with the heart its hard to begrudge them. It might not speak to the film buffs, but that isn’t what the Academy is about and it wouldn’t be the first time. Plus this flick is less polarizing. I think few, if any hate The King’s Speech. Some people are baffled by The Social Network’s love. Its a solid unoffensive crowd pleaser.
I guess I just rather go with the flick of the frality of the human ego as I believe Kris puts it, but that’s me. Flick that defines social networking or a generation? Eh, not so sure about that. Zuckerberg’s one of kind, and I don’t think no matter how much social networking you do means u could easily become him. Just traditional values both good and bad(or at least bittersweet). That’s a story I prefer, but the Academy prefers success. It is what it is.
“and Ron Howard had to wait a few years to get their due”
What due?
WHAT due?
The night I saw Shakespeare In Love beat SPR and Thin Red Line I stopped putting any stock into the Oscars and the Academy.
I think I have said this but again we should all be thankful TKS did not come out in 2007. If people think this year will be a blight imagine if it beat NCFOM, TWBB, Clayton, Atonement and Juno.
Really, I think Tom Hooper winning best director over will be a MUCH bigger blight than TKS winning simply because of the names of the other four nominees.
Great article, Kris. I just saw King’s Speech yesterday for the first time. I have seen Social Network several times, so it’s difficult to definitely say at this point which one is better for me. I think they are pretty similar in quality. Both are great movies and there is absolutely nothing wrong with King’s Speech winning Best Picture.
The only thing that was noticeably different for me was Fincher vs. Hooper. I found Hooper’s camera choices to be pretty distracting at times, and not in a good way. The acting in both films was great, but look at the actors in King’s Speech and compare them with the actors in Social Network. Hooper got great performances from proven actors with long track records of greatness. Fincher managed to get some great performances out of young actors you would have never expected to do so well in any movie (Eisenberg and Hammer come to mind). Add in the number of snubs in Fincher’s career and it’s really not close for me on the matter of who should get Best Director. But at the end of the day, it really doesn’t matter. Zodiac got zero nominations and I still feel it’s Fincher’s best work.
As disappointing as your title is to me, I will try to take your closing words to heart. I think the critics awards gave us Social Network fans unrealistic expectations as to how well the film would do with the Academy. Anyone who’s seen The King’s Speech with a full house, as I did at TIFF, knows the effect it has on audiences. And that was never the case with The Social Network.
I am holding out hope for Fincher. It would be a real shame to see him lose. I appreciate that Tom Hooper is a fine filmmaker, but watching the making-of doc on The Social Network DVD really made me want to see Fincher awarded for his efforts. Directors are passionate, tirelessly hardworking people. They have to be, if they believe in what they’re making. But Fincher seems to be a special breed. This is by no means his last hurrah or, arguably, his best work, but it definitely would be nice.
Maxim: I don’t disagree with you, but I’m not willing to play the “bash Ron Howard” game.
“The night I saw Shakespeare In Love beat SPR and Thin Red Line I stopped putting any stock into the Oscars and the Academy. ”
I think that’s probably the most absolute thing you and I share, Matthew (though I was miffed about TTRL more than SPR, which was a film I never fully embraced). Didn’t know that.
The King’s Speech is a wonderful film. It is my fourth favorite of the Best Picture nominees but a great film nonetheless. My favorites are The Fighter, Toy Story 3, The Social Network, and The King’s Speech- in that order. However The Social Network is the best directed of the bunch and Hooper winning Best Director over Fincher would be a tragedy.
While I appreciate your sticking up for The King’s Speech (it is indeed a damn good film), I’m kinda sorta baffled by you, Tapley. Your answer as to why so many people are upset about these turn of events is that… they were wrong about the quality of TSN in the first place? There is a lot wrong with that assertion. You’re right, The Social Network doesn’t need the Academy’s validation because posterity is all that matters in the end. However, I do think those who are frustrated (myself included) by the turning of the tables this season have every right to be. I think TKS is too good of a film to be considered “an undeserving winner”. However, I will most certainly count it as “a deserving winner that won over more deserving contenders”.
So there it is.
Well said, Kris. We can always count on you for a cool, level-headed analysis without hyperbole or vitriol.
I also agree that this season has been a nasty one, continuing an unsavoury trend. It’s a game, people. Don’t put your hearts so into it and start calling each other names or acting like a film *deserves* a particular award. red_wine, your comment about entitlement and ‘birthright’ seems apt.
“I think that’s probably the most absolute thing you and I share, Matthew (though I was miffed about TTRL more than SPR, which was a film I never fully embraced).”
It’s ok, as it was overhwelmingly embraced by the actual veterans. I think SPR will deal.
There are war films, of which there are many. some may be poetic, which Spielberg could do in his sleep.
And then there are combat films, of which Ryan is one of a kind.
And may I add that I won’t be upset about The King’s Speech winning. However, I will most certainly throw a fit if Hooper beats out Fincher. That would just be a tragedy.
What is your justification for having Steinfeld over Leo in your predictions?
If it’s about the unlikeliness of “True Grit” netting one win from ten nominations, then I’ll contend that “True Grit” could win Sound Editing instead of “Inception.”
“Your answer as to why so many people are upset about these turn of events is that… they were wrong about the quality of TSN in the first place?”
That’s not exactly what I mean. I wouldn’t challenge how great you or the next person think TSN is. It is, after all, my #6 film of the year. But I nevertheless think undo awards season expectation was set upon its shoulders by a rather hyperbolic showing of appreciation from the critics’ awards circuit, and I think that expectation assisted in falsely elevating the perceived quality of the film. But that is, admittedly, just my opinion.
Perfect summarization of the state of things Kris. Certain bloggers can’t see the forest for the trees. I’d say the past week or so, everything post PGA, has to be the worst in memory for Oscar prognostication and blogging.
I watched 125 movies in 2010 and The King’s Speech had THE best response from the audience I saw it with. No amount of critic awards for The Social Network can change the fact that people respond viscerally to The King’s Speech. And that The King’s Speech is a critically acclaimed film, a financial success, overall a very well-made film. And the guilds appear to agree.
The need to take away from one film in order to prop up another never made sense to me. The hysteria, the manic behavior, the hyperbole, it doesn’t really do anyone, including The Social Network, any favors.
I think even if TSN wasn’t released this year, TKS winning Best Picture over other worthy films is incomprehensible. Tom Hooper possibly winning Best Director is just gross.
I’m in the rearguard that much prefers SiL to SPR; the latter is a technical marvel, but the story I find fairly uninteresting. Admittedly, I’m squarely in SiL’s primary target demographic (lit nerd with an English BA).
Thin Red Line is my #2 favorite film of all time. A different league than SPR but I did love SPR none the less.
The King’s Speech is a good film but I do like each and every one of the other nine nominees more.
A couple of things. First, if any of the nominees except TSN wins the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay, then even its most adamant supporters will have to concede that TKS was not the “villain” in this year’s Oscar race.
And second, given the fact that there is general agreement that it’s game over for most of the “big” categories, doesn’t it make sense (for sites like this one) to spend the next four weeks intensely scrutinizing the short subjects, their creators and the stories behind them? If you’re betting, that’s where the money is to be made this year, even more so than usual.
I have a simple but important question:
Who is a better judge of a movie and its quality? Critics or Guilds?
Apparently, this year we see that divide very clearly. TSN won almost all critics awards out there and then when it comes to Guilds, it lost the major ones so far to TKS.
While Critics believe that TSN is the best movie of the year, The Guilds think it is TKS!
So, whose judgment should we trust?
Just a bunch of critics from Ohio, Detroit, New Mexico along with major ones from NY, LA? Or 100s of Guild members who know their craft better than anyone else?
Which group can make an objective decision on which movie is the best? Or are there equally critical external factors play roles in their decisions?
Paul: I think you’re aware of our on-going Oscar Guide, which does, indeed, cover each race thoroughly. Though maybe that’s your point. (Best Animated Short tomorrow.)
Yeah, Kris, that was my point. ;-) I usually win my Oscar pools, despite going no better than 1/3 in short subjects, and 1/2 in Music, and that’s not going to cut it this year. I gotta do some serious studying (and be luckier than usual).
Sertan I really do believe both serve a purpose. As I said before, critics are meant to guide the discussion, not dictate it. They are meant to remind audiences and those who vote of films that were forgotten or misplaced thanks to ill-timed marketing and release schedules.
To say The Social Network is Citizen Kane, that it’s the film that defines a generation, that it’s the most heralded film of all-time, even more so than Schindler’s List, and that accordingly it HAS to win Best Picture, doesn’t take into account what Best Picture really means or how the AMPAS even work.
I totally agree with the point you’re trying to make, Kris, but i keep getting the feeling that there is this critical undertone aimed at TSN now, like it’s the film’s fault that it’s the “film of the moment” and that it’s the the film’s fault that people are reacting the way they are. Please tell m i’m reading that wrong, because that’s just as bad as the point you’re trying to make, in my book.
Well, I saw – and disliked – The King’s Speech *before* it swept the guilds, so I don’t get the whole “it’s a great film, get over it and stop being part of the backlash” message of this piece, but I guess I see your main point .
If there’s a BP/BD split with TKS and TSN, I’ll be happy. Or even if there isn’t, it’s not the end of the world.
Speaking of SPR v SIL there is a great Q and A on Deadline Daily with Harvey Weinstein. I don’t think Kris put it in his round up today but it is quite interesting.
I was pleased Shakespeare in Love beat Saving Private Ryan. But watching those two films duke it out while The Thin Red Line sat on the “happy to be nominated bench” was a little like going to watch a Little League match when the World Series is going on next door.
There, my first (and no doubt last) baseball analogy on IC.
Guy: That was last year for me with “Inglourious Basterds”. If only Harvey could have pulled through for that one :( I can’t imagine how sour the reaction would have been if it had pulled off the upset. It would be like King’s Speech now x1,000
What I think it is, is that TSN was almost set to win. All the critics awards it got made it seem like a sure thing. And because it was a lot of peoples (including myself) favorite movie of the year, the almost sudden change of TKS being the sure thing got a lot of people mad.
I personally don’t mind that TKS will win. Like Kris said, its a pretty good movie, and no one should be offended by it. I know what movie or movies I’ll be watching and showing to my kids in 10-20 years from now, and that’s really all that matters.
“i keep getting the feeling that there is this critical undertone aimed at TSN now”
That’s not intended. If anything it’s a tone that’s preemptive, given the indignation leveled toward pieces like this this year, but I in no way think it’s the film’s fault that reaction to it and rallied around it has been so blatant and strong. And I tried to make that clear by noting that the film “never deserved to have that kind of hyperbole thrust upon it in the first place” and that “we live in a world where a film can’t just be what it is.”
Loyal,
I agree that both groups serves purposes. I think the problem (especially this year) is that some people just took cricitics’ choices as the ultimate choice and now they dont want to accept the Guilds’ choices!
Also, in recent years some critics got a bit carried away and try to impose their opinions/choices as facts rather than the functions you very well put.
And now we are a third group, called Bloggers! Sometimes they try to agree more with the critics, but then they try to distance themselves to build/keep their own identity. Very interesting dynamics.
Hey Kris, great job on what I find to be the best piece of awards-related writing that I’ve ever read, ever since I started Oscar-watching nine years ago. Somebody really needed speak-out on the matter, and I’m glad that it was you and that you did it so well. Of course part of my adulation comes from seeing my own thoughts validated by you in a public forum, but that doesn’t diminish the importance of the points that were made. Bravo.
Setain, I think an old article from MSNBC is useful here.
“The Oscars aren’t the oldest movie awards. The National Board of Review began in 1920, nearly a decade before the Oscars. The Oscars also police themselves, a messy business. Actors nominate actors, directors directors, etc., and then everybody votes in the grand finale. This isn’t necessarily true in other industries. The most prestigious awards in Major League Baseball, for example — the MVP, the Hall of Fame — are chosen by the Baseball Writers Association of America. Essentially the critics.
In fact, the first film critics group, the New York Film Critics Circle, was created in 1935 in reaction to the Academy, and it’s fun to see where the two groups have differed over the years. I smiled that New Yorkers gave James Cagney (one of my favorite actors) the best actor award in 1938 for “Angels with Dirty Faces” (one of my favorite gangster movies), and that both “Citizen Kane” (instead of “How Green Was My Valley”) and “The Treasure of Sierra Madre” (instead of “Hamlet”) won best picture awards. At the same time, here’s some pictures the Academy anointed that the New York critics did not: “Gone with the Wind,” “Casablanca,” “The Godfather,” “The Godfather – Part II” and “Amadeus.” There’s fault in everything if you look closely enough.”
In any case, I do think those iconic differences say something about the groups’ differing tastes. For example, LAFCA chose “Star Wars” and “ET.” National Society of Film Critics chose “Blue Velvet.” Just food for thought.
I think last night Amy Poehler said the best thing before announcing Alec Baldwin’s win:
“Best actor according to some people in the room tonight!”
I believe that really summarizes the awards. They are awards as decided by some groups. I wish they would stop imposing their choices as the “absolute best”. Especially for movies, a very experiential consumption, it is very hard to agree on one movie only as the best!
Also, it is a result of what was created by AMPAS over the years! They position OSCAR as the ultimate, highest award for achievement in movies! Then, many people forget that it is still only AMPAS members vote for those awards and that membership is not 100 percent inclusive! So it is the best movie for those whoc actually vote.
By the way, I’d liek to know the response rate among AMPAS members. How many of tehm actually vote for Oscars? and what is the response rate distribution across the groups? Do actors tend to vote more than other categories? Oh well…all those questions:)
Bravo Kris… an article like that is one of the reasons why your site is certainly in my opinion one of the best oscar- predicting sites on the web.
I have followed you from the early days(on Oscarcantral) and the Oscar Talk podcasts are the must listen to – every friday.
I know how you felt about TKS (it was not among your top 10) but to write such a reasonable article when others are having a bloody meltdown like the world of film was coming to an end is simply a credit to you and your site.
I agree completely. Personally, King’s Speech is my least favorite of the 8 nominees I’ve seen, but it’s still a great movie. My roommate keeps getting pissed because of The King’s Speech’s success over The Social Network, but it’s all about opinions. I don’t like The King’s Speech as much as The Social Network, Inception or 127 Hours, but it’s not my opinion, it’s the Academy’s. And it’s just that, a collective opinion, not a definite truth.
You could make the same argument for Shakespeare in Love.. it also got amazing reviews from critics. But does that mean it doesn’t deserve its reputation just because its RT score is in the 90s? No, it got its reputation because it defeated other films that were better.
I agree with your post for the most part, especially about the civility of debate.
My one quibble is when you say TSN doesn’t deserve the hyperbole thrust on it in the first place. I don’t claim to know as much about film as others do, but there are extremely reputable film people and critics (not just bloggers) who have said that TSN is one of the best American films of the past several years and would never be influenced by a quote by Peter Travers. It may be your opinion that TSN wasn’t that great but it shouldn’t be stated as fact. These critics all independently reviewed the film, and most would not have known what others would say about it before they submitted their reviews, and all thought that the movie was excellent.
There hasn’t been a movie that has done close to 100 million in the box office with these kinds of reviews since Schindler’s List. I think that’s why people are shocked and very upset, it just seems wrong that such an acclaimed studio film will not be recognized.