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”
No review was written in a vacuum other than Foundas’s and Travers’s, which hit weeks before most even saw the film. I get what you’re saying, but I think an atmosphere was smartly being cultivated around the film beginning in early September.
Anna: Indeed. Which is why I noted that the film is unfortunately being taken to task because of the awards failure of another film. In my world, that’s just not fair.
Mike, I think that Kris was saying that no movie, no matter how “good,” how well-liked, deserves to be so quickly characterized with such hyperboles as Travers’s. It makes a movie out to be more than whatever it is on its own. History will decide its place, which we won’t see for many years.
It’s like declaring a movie an “instant classic” just because you love it. The phrase is an oxymoron and suggests a hint of entitlement.
I can agree that The King’s Speech is no dog, but Masterpiece Theatre? Absolutely. Lest we forget, before Hooper graduated to HBO, all 3 of his significant TV works were Masterpiece Theatre productions. It’s an actual reference point, not just a snide comparison.
So, what, The Social Network is an Aerosmith music video?
If movies, or people, for that matter win awards over more deserving films and people they will be taken to task every time.
Every time I go on Youtube and view the clip of Ellen Burstyn’s monologue in Requiem the majority of the comments are bashing Julia Roberts.
All Julia did was get out of her seat and accept an award. I guess she could have gone the Ving Rhames route!
Point being, it’s needlessly reductive and certainly used as a pejorative.
Don’t be so literal, Kris. That’s actually a valid point. And yes, Fincher’s days at ILM and as a music video director certainly have had an influence on how TSN was crafted. And yes, there is a masterpiece theater element to TKS, not a criticism, just Hooper’s previous work influencing his current work. Likewise for Fincher.
I don’t think many are using it as anything other than a way to diminish the work, but good on the two of you for behaving otherwise.
I think part of the reason that people are getting so up in arms about this race, and this season in general is because all the ‘right’ movies are nominated (at least the ones that were realistically possible) or at least were in the conversation. It’s very rare that I have followed a race and seen a lot of my favorite films of the year still in it this late. Now, since those movies are the ones the King’s Speech is knocking out, then people are much more likely to attack it than when most of the people who watch this race and have the critical taste in film that we do are used to not seeing their favorites nominated. When all of a sudden it seemed like everythign was lining up to award what most seem to consider the best film of the year it was unexpected, and everyone appreciated that the academy was finally going to get it right. Then it got knocked down by a movie that can easily be clasified as a classic ‘oscar movie’ and now everyone thinks AMPAS is regressing, and they are attackign a perfectly good movie because of it.
That was longer than I wanted and I’m sure I rambled, but I hope it made some sense
It’s used as a pejorative by people who don’t like the style, yes, and who see it carried over from those films to The King’s Speech. The off-kilter compositions that some have harped on as distracting (and that others like) are hallmarks of both TV directors switching to film and plays being “opened up” for the cinema — both relevant here, given Hooper’s background and given the original form of the script.
And yes, I’d argue that the Winklevi regatta sequence is an unfortunate aesthetic rehashing of Fincher’s commercial career, a Gatorade commercial that has no place in The Social Network’s otherwise fairly cohesive aesthetic; the sexy-party/coding montage similarly takes away from the character work he is doing and flirts dangerously with music video conventions.
Drawing on a director’s signature style and history is only “needlessly reductive” if you’re just doing it to be glib — e.g. “Aerosmith music video” — rather than to make a point about something that’s not working for you.
Oh whatever.
I get it. It’s an opinion. It’s just the Academy. It’s just the movie they like.
That they chose traditional Oscar bait over a movie that was a critical darling and will indeed be considered a modern classic as time goes by will just be another example we use in the future to describe another one of the Academy’s safe choices. And I agree it’s not fair to The King’s Speech. A very good movie. Deserves most of its Oscar nominations.
I eluded to 1990 earlier, and how this scenario reminds me of Dances with Wolves vs. Goodfellas. I think DWW is an exceptional film, a moving, technically-brilliant epic movie, and absolutely deserving of its nominations. But Goodfellas is Goodfellas. Its hard to look back on this moment and not think, “What were they thinking?” The same thing will happen in years to come with the 2010 race, and TKS vs. TSN. Spin it all you want today, but it will happen, by some of the same people defending TKS and the Academy today.
Kris, I know your focus is very much on the big screen, but would you same issues with TV? Mad Men has done really well on the Awards Circuit, but the equally good “Wire” wasn’t much of a contender.
Shouldn’t a film be more than “generally agreeable?” Should we not aspire to more?
Indeed, The King’s Speech is “generally agreeable.” I’d rather have a picture WIN that is not just agreeable, but a true cinematic experience, not a glorified TV movie from a television director who simply got lucky to hook up with Harvey Weinstein and a writer with a good story and a great personal story. There were many films that were true cinematic experiences – big studio films like The Social Network which is perfectly polished, The Fighter which feels a bit more like a scrappy indie film but is moving and relatable for everyone, True Grit that got 10 nominations and is the most impeccably crafted film in the race from icon American filmmakers… Sorry, but “generally agreeable” does not cut it.
In a year that gave us The Social Network, Inception, True Grit, Black Swan, Toy Story 3, Blue Valentine, The Ghost Writer, Winter’s Bone and Shutter Island, the AMPAS is giving Best Picture to a glorified HBO movie with good performances. Ugh.
What was the last movie with a World War II backdrop that got multiple Oscar nominations that went home emptyhanded? Life is Beautiful, The Reader, The Pianist and Inglourious Basterds all won at least one Oscar. Of course AMPAS loves The King’s Speech. It’s the only nominee with Nazis in it.
qwiggles: It’s a stretch to correlate things to the original version of the script. Hooper never had an intention of developing it as a play so just because Seidler once wrote it as such to figure some things out doesn’t mean Hooper’s stylistic choices are representative of some desperate attempt to “open” the film up.
But I do appreciate the thoughtful consideration of the rest. I actually quite loved what was going on with the coding sequence because of how it does a nice job of conveying the character’s own juvenile vision of women (the farm animal bit cutting nicely to the sex caboose pulling into the frat) and how that is perhaps merited given college culture. The regatta sequence, I’ve always thought, is out of place and does little to nothing thematically.
DarkLayers: I actually don’t follow TV closely enough to have an informed opinion on it.
Andy: Well, I don’t think a film “should” be more than that. I don’t think a film “should” be anything, really. But you’re considering “generally agreeable” in lower terms than I am. There are plenty who feel that TKS aims for a particular place of character study and does a fine job of it, even artfully.
But you lay into the “glorified TV movie” stuff that I just can’t engage with any further, so I have no real desire to try and sway you off of that opinion.
But I will note, your description of The Fighter is easily placed on TKS, too, so it’s nothing more than you disliking the latter and looking for validation to that effect. Hence the point of this column.
S.D.: You stole that line from Nat Rogers. ;)
qwiggles: Are you really going to write off the one scene where Fincher gets to show off a little? I LOVED the regatta sequence and found it relevant to the film. That scene, as well as the building face-mash sequence, are why I believe Angus Wall & Kirk Baxter are owed an oscar.
Dylan: Why was it relevant to the film?
I absolutely love this article. I also take offense to the notion that TSN is the indisputable best picture of 2010. It might be your opinion but it is certainly not fact.
TSN, in my opinion, is nothing but an intellectual writing exercise. Yes! the diaglogue is witty, snarky, intelligent and fast-talking but that’s about it. When the credits rolled, I could care less about any of the characters. In fact, the portrayal of Zuckerberg left a sour taste in my mouth. It was annoyingly melodramatic and had not even an ounce of humanity. Sorkin went overboard with his anti-facebook agenda and wrote an insanely one-note character void of any realism or soul. His Zuckerberg was nothing short of the antichrist, ful of nothing but malice.
Are we suppose to believe that Zuckerberg would betray his best friend without even a drop of emotion? no second guessng, no inhibition, no nothing? and what was up with that opening scene? how can you be so absolutely clueless with someone who have been in a long term relationship with? it was like he wasn’t even listening to the girl’s voice.
This what people call a masterpiece? the “citizen kane” of our generation? gimme a break. The critics and their sheep mentality immediately crowned TSN their prom king the second they heard Sorkin and Fincher were the cool kids of 2011. I’m elated to se the guilds thinking for themselves and awarding a movie with substance and soul. Better luck next time Fincher.
Afrika: I actually think your interpretation of Eisenberg’s portrayal misses some interesting things going on in the drama. I’ll defer to my interview with Trent Reznor. Regarding his sessions trying to develop the sonic environment of the film:
“Let’s write something that feels like that sense of dread and loss when you fucked over your best friend, but it was for a good cause, you think. That sense of isolation, and that sense of empowerment that comes from having a great idea and the hairs stand up on the back of your neck, and you know it’s a great idea and you’re chasing that idea to its fruition.”
Happy to see a quote of mine get in there! Thanks!
I’ve found the backlash to King’s Speech incredibly frustrating since it’s really not a bad film at all. I don’t think it’s the best film of the year, but it’s still a worthy winner (assuming it does win). In fact, until this weekend I would’ve considered myself firmly in the Social Network camp, now I am stumping for Speech in a big way because I’m so turned off by the rabid reaction.
Interestingly, given the frequent Shakespeare/Private Ryan comparison, I watched Shakespeare in Love for the first time last night. I think it stands up pretty well. Very well, actually. I wouldn’t say I like it as much as Private Ryan, but I don’t think it’s some kind of blight on the Academy.
Kris: Is the bearded man in the bear suit relevant to “True Grit”. No, not really, not every scene in a movie has to be perfectly in place with the story at hand or has to add a new piece to the puzzle that wasn’t already there. The regatta sequence is beautifully shot and edited and acompanied by a beautiful techno rendition of “In the Hall of the Mountain King”. And it’s not distracting or irrelevant to the plot, it’s two of the main characters in the film racing, and perhaps it’s symbolic of Zuckerberg inching ahead in their Harvard connection/facebook idea. but that’s only my interpretation.
On Hooper’s direction, I think he’s done a very good job. He’s got form too; The Damned United is an excellent sports film (and you get a better performance from Timothy Spall in that one as a bonus) and John Adams is simply outstanding. I’d take a guy with John Adams on his resume over a whole heap of directors who have made a decade’s worth of films.
@ Samuel: Your support for a film’s awards prospects is dependent on other people’s reactions? Not, oh I don’t know, the film you think is better?
Kris, Pete Hammond quoted an unnamed Academy member who said The King’s Speech felt like an HBO movie. It’s not just know nothing anonymous douches like me and Andy making the “glorified tv movie” comment.
Mr. Tapley
I just read the interview and I can honestly say that I didn’t see or feel that sense of dread and loss. I re-watched The Social Network last week and I still didn’t see it. In my opinion, Zuckerberg and his evil nerd glare of malice never breaks character in the entire movie, not even once. Even with the more “tender” moments with Eduardo, it is still devoid of any emotion. The movie isn’t believable, as far as I’m concerned.
*he is still devoid*
Dylan: You said “I LOVED the regatta sequence and found it relevant to the film,” so either it’s relevant or it isn’t. If it is, and I can only imagine you think it is by that quote, I’m asking why you think so. “True Grit” really doesn’t have anything to do with the price of tea in China.
But anyway, sure, it’s an obvious race correlation, but stylistically it’s distracting, however “cool” the sequence may be.
S.D.: I was talking about the “It’s the only nominee with Nazis in it” comment, actually.
@Robert Hamer it’s not dependent on it, but I’m more than happy to step in and support and defend a great film from a particularly nasty and unfounded strand of criticism that has surfaced in the wake of the guild awards.
Besides, my pick for best of 2010, Animal Kingdom, is not in the mix. And in the Oscar ten, I’d pick True Grit and Black Swan over any of the others as well.
All that is a way of saying that no, my support for a film’s awards prospects are not dependent on other people’s reactions. But in this instance, regarding these two particular films, it’s lpayed a part in influencing what I’ve been commenting on in the threads like these.
That should read “it’s played a part”.
Yeah, I stole that line. You know the old saying. Funny because it’s true.
The King’s Speech is a fine movie. It’s just such a safe and boring choice. But that’s just my opinion.
If you read my last line, Kris, you’ll see why I find it relevant. I didn’t mean to flip-flop on my statement’s of relevancy, so I appologize for that, but I don’t view a scene as relevant/not relevant. There’s a spectrum to it, it’s not black and white. The regatta sequence is partially relevant, but not entirely irrelevent. And I percieved you were arguing that all the scenes in a movie have to be relevant, hence the “true grit” reference.
I thought Eisenberg did a great job of breaking the “evil nerd glare” persona with the final Eduardo confrontation. His house of cards had fallen, and he had to see the consequence of his ambition face-to-face. It was a small crack in the egotism that surrounds the character, but it was a very noticeable crack. Eisenberg is so good in this movie.
Also, in regards to support King’s Speech, it’s not like I’m an Academy or guild member and have any actual impact on what happens. Nor does my support of a film in the comments section of a website have any impact on what films I like and recommend to people.
Hey Kris, sorry if this is considered off-topic, but do you mind addressing my question in comment #25?
“I thought Eisenberg did a great job of breaking the “evil nerd glare” persona with the final Eduardo confrontation. His house of cards had fallen, and he had to see the consequence of his ambition face-to-face. It was a small crack in the egotism that surrounds the character, but it was a very noticeable crack.”
I agree with this.
Jacob: Sorry, it was lost in the mix. Actually, I’m barely hanging on with Steinfeld now. I want to hold off and see, but The Fighter is very much the #2 film for the Academy right now (if you ask around), so it would make perfect sense for the film to net two supporting wins in the grand scheme of the year.
Thanks, I’m gonna stick with Leo in my personal prediction list, then.
I was fine with The Social Network winning best picture. It wasn’t my favorite, but I respected it just like I did for The Hurt Locker, The Departed and No Country for Old Men when they won.
The King’s Speech is another story. I thought it was an ok movie at best. The Academy is allowed to do whatever they want, but people are allowed to disagree with them. I hope 10 years from now, people will say TKS is a great movie. My fear is that they won’t.
“Why do we care so much about the Oscars? Why do we keep coming back?”
Here’s my answer: Because we like the conversation that the giving-out of awards engenders.
What I mean is that the Oscars, and the awards season, puts movie-going at the center of pop culture for a few months. After nominations are announced, my friends (not as obsessed with film as I am) are suddenly all talking about the movies that they *should* see. For those of us who see movies year round, all the time, it’s like we’re suddenly at the main table instead of off to the side with the sullen teens.
The fact that the conversation gets very insular and mean-spirited here on the interwebs doesn’t take away from the fact that more people seem to celebrate the movies around this time of year, in general.
So in the end I don’t really care if The Social Network or The King’s Speech wins best picture. (I haven’t taken Best Picture seriously since Braveheart… or maybe since Rain Man.) What I do enjoy is that there’s a lot more movie talk going on.
Masterpiece Theatre not only gave America such landmark period works as “The Jewel in the Crown,” “Fortunes of War,” “Elizabeth R” and “I, Claudius,” but plenty of hard-edged contemporary work too, including “Prime Suspect,” “House of Cards” and “Traffik” — the source of the Steven Soderbergh film.
So it’s not only inappropriate to use it as a pejorative, but also not strictly accurate to use it — as so many do — as a byword for cosy British corset-porn.
What an excellent take on the current state of the awards season. You’ve taken everything I’ve been thinking for the past few weeks and worded it in a way that is more succinct and relevant then I ever could. Wonderful post!
Blah, blah, blah. TKS and TSN will split and The Fighter will win everything! No, but in all seriousness, I think it’s the different roads to oscar that gets our blood boiling in these last few weeks.
Kris and Guy get to see these movies with little to no prior judgements heaped onto them, whereas us outsider filmgoers, yes, may get to go to some festivals and see these movies but it’s not like them.
They get to watch these movies in the presence of it’s makers. They get to talk to people who are in the business about what is good. They are in the know much more than we are. So when we come to the end of the year and The Kings Speech just hits theaters and we are underwhelmed, (I was.) I’m not surprised because we read ahead of time what is SUPPOSEDLY good and expectations kick in. I think that is it’s downfall.
A lot of us saw The Social Network before The Kings Speech and loved it even though there was this huge critical favoring, it didn’t get the expectations sky high. Plus it all happened in the course of maybe a few weeks with the heaps of amazing reviews. Whereas with The Kings Speech it was a long and tedious road for us. For me at least, it was like your mom saying “I’ll get you a new bike for christmas” in the summer. But The Social Network was like finding the gifts in the closet unwrapped a week before christmas.
But in the end, it all doesn’t matter, because if The Academy really were the end all be all, even though they supposedly are, Blue Valentine should be nominated for best actor, picture, director, and screenplay. But it’s the moviegoers that decide what is right. We watch movies to learn, to feel, to be entertained. It’s what we take from them and not what is given to them in the end.
sorry, a bit long.
I strongly suggest everyone give this THR interview with Tom Hooper a read, no matter your opinion of his work on the film.
I think it interesting that you choose MetaCritics with its small number of voters when you said that a small number of voters is what is wrong with the Critics Awards. By the way, it is a critics web site.
If you want a large audience to pick the winners, maybe we should just go with the the box office champion. Toy Story 3 should win.
It is a great argument for KS that it is inoffensive and simple. That is an Oscar winner for sure.
The lowest common denominator should not be the Oscar winner.
Can’t you guys see that this a movie about speech therapy lessons? If it was not for the acting of Firth and Rush this movie would be dead on arrival.
I have enjoyed watching ALL the movies this season and I have enjoyed ALL the comments made at IN CONTENTION. I salute you and thank you for the effort.
My criteria for movie enjoyment is to forget that I am in a cinema, to feel at one with my fellow viewers ( public dreaming) to forget where I parked the car and the lingering romance that subsequent days bring.
Bravo to anyone who gets anything to the big screen.
Considering the year`s best and brightest – Inception and Black Swan – have never been frontrunners, I don`t care which forgettable movie upsets which. Nobody in real life thinks TSN is a great movie. It`s a total blogger/critics darling like HL. At least regular folk dig TKS like they did Slumdog before it lost rewatchability. Uplifting stuff does that at first. So no matter which one of these two wins, it`s another wasted year.
But I`m enjoying the turnaround in what seemed already won race .
@Earl I think the use of the metacritic scores was to point out amongst all the backlash against TKS from Social Network fans that TKS is actually a hugely critically acclaimed film.
A big part of this debate is that the guilds/academy have departed siginificantly from each other. That’s true, at least if the awards circuit is your guide, but a look at the numbers show that it is not really the case.
The King’s Speech is more critically acclaimed than anything in the 2008 BP five, and everything except The Hurt Locker in the 2009 ten.
@Earl Or, to put it another way, it is disingenuous for fans of The Social Network to say that the critics got it right with that film and then turn around and denigrate King’s Speech by calling it a TV movie (or whatever other insult) when it is only marginally less critically acclaimed.