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”
“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.”
It’s rather clear, I think, that the point of supplying that was to note that the film isn’t some piece of disposable junk that couldn’t pass critical muster.
“Bravo to anyone who gets anything to the big screen.”
No truer words. No truer words.
How awesome would it be if “Toy Story 3” shocked us all and took the grand prize, benefiting from the ranked ballot? It’s not gonna happen, but I can dream. C’mon, dark horse victory!
@Andrew F
If that happened, it would be the best Oscars ever. I mean, the surprise and the history it would make; nothing could top it. It won’t happen, but still
99, “Up” had 88. FWIW, “The English Patient” had 87…
What I don’t get is why so many people seem to think that King’s Speech is some kind of rousing crowd pleaser.
I mean, I didn’t love Slumdog Millionaire but I could understand why so many people loved it; it was a wildly energetic success story that ended with a great catharsis, you could help but shout “Jai Ho” when you saw it.
The King’s Speech on the other hand seemed like a very slow and stately affair which ended on a rather somber note. These stories of audiences giving it standing ovations seem pretty disconnected from the experience I had with it.
91 — Fair point, Guy, though I have had the misfortune of slogging through Hooper’s Daniel Deronda, which does a fine job of beating the human interest out of Eliot. Corset-porn at its err, porniest.
Robert Hamer, what a worthless statement in comment #75. We’re not the ones giving the awards, are we? So why should our own opinions about the movies enter into analyses of the awards season? It’s totally irrelevant. The idea that any movie is in fact “better” than some other is absurd outside of one’s individual, subjective opinion.
Earl, who’s making the argument that The King’s Speech’s appeal is limited to the lowest common denominator? Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, and box office have demonstrated that it is in fact one of the most acclaimed and beloved movies of the year. It’ll win Best Picture not because it’s simply the least offensive but because it’s the one that the most people like the most. And then when they vote, simple math means that it will win. Isn’t that how voting works? Isn’t that how bodies of voters decide what and whom to award?
The Godfather will always be #1 or #2 on the IMDb Top 250 also because it’s the “most agreeable” movie. Does that mean that it simply appeals to the lowest common denominator? Is that the argument that you want to make? I don’t think so, unless you’re biased against The Godfather. Just like with The King’s Speech, it also happens to be the movie that most people like the most. Not everyone who gives it a perfect “10” believes that it deserves to be called the best movie ever.
@darklayers Speech is level with Up, then, and below Hurt Locker amongst the 2009 ten. Also, for what it’s worth, I quite like The English Patient.
I myself have been guilty about hyperbolizing my displeasure at The King’s Speech sudden surge in the race, as it means that my favorite film of the year will very likely not win the big prize, but I guess the truth is that I did enjoy The King’s Speech quite a lot. Sure, I’d call The Social Network and The Fighter better films, and I’d say that Toy Story 3 and Inception are more memorable from the year, but Speech would still sit somewhere comfortably in my top ten of the year. Better, in my opinion, than True Grit, which was great but left me feeling strangely empty and unsatisfied for reasons I still can’t quite decipher. Better than Black Swan (on first viewing at least, though I think that one will require one or two more for me to truly appreciate it). Certainly better than The Kid’s Are Alright, which sported three solid performances but also the most flawed screenplay of the year.
I guess, over the past few years, I’ve gotten used to some of my favorite films walking away with the gold. Last year, Basterds was my firm favorite, but The Hurt Locker was truly unforgettable, and I was happy to watch it clean up. Slumdog, No Country, The Departed: all films that would have landed at or very near the top of my favorite films lists for those years. But The King’s Speech fits with the choices the Academy made throughout the first half of this decade and throughout the 90s and long before that: it’s a crowd pleaser. It’s inspiring, it’s moving, it’s well written and well acted (and it has Harvey Weinstein fighting for it, which never hurts). Is it the best film of the year? No, but it’s one that almost anyone could enjoy and love, and that’s why it got a standing ovation at SAG last night and that’s why it will win best picture. As for The Social Network and it’s bevy of critics awards, it obviously doesn’t need that Oscar, as so many brilliant films didn’t need it over the years. Sure, I’ll probably always go back to this year and say “man, that should have won”, but that’s part of the fun anyway.
Since 2000, only The Return of the King, No Country for Old Men, and The Hurt Locker have gotten better reviews (we’re talking only about BP winners here) than The King’s Speech.
Also, if The Social Network somehow pulls off what we would now call an “upset,” then it would be the most highly acclaimed BP winner since Schindler’s List. Then you’d have to go back to Amadeus to find a similar level of acclaim. That The Social Network probably won’t win is a shame in the grand scheme of things, I suppose, but the point is that if it had not been released last year to face the King’s Speech juggernaut of the moment, then people probably wouldn’t be up in arms and diminishing what is arguably a well-deserved honor for a movie that so many people like so much.
MJS, I’m completely with you. I don’t see how “The King’s Speech” is a crowd-pleaser at all. I didn’t leave smiling, or cheering, or thinking, really. It was a nice formula done nicely, but that’s it. My audience was completely quiet at the end, as well.
The Social Network fanboys are truly out for Hooper’s blood; it’s hilarious to watch.
Okay here’s the thing ten years from now, which film will be remembered more TKS or TSN? My guess is TSN, hell BSwan will be remembered more than TKS.
No ill will towards TKS ( I haven’t seen it), but it really doesn’t matter if it wins or not, it won’t be the film people will be talking about ten years from now.
Just like Avatar and THL, Avatar will be the film people will remember not THL ( and I loved THL).
Agreed Afrika. The only problem is that most people think the King’s Speech is actually a great film. It would be so much funnier if most people did not.
Melissa
I disagree. People will remember these films BECAUSE they won the Oscar, so yes, it does matter. The Hurt Locker is a brilliant film and deserved that Oscar, but if it hadn’t won, it would have been forgotten. Avatar will be remembered because of the phenomenon that it was, but I don’t know if I’ve heard from a single person who’s seen both films and honestly thinks Avatar should have won.
Similarly, The King’s Speech will be remembered because it won, but The Social Network will more likely be regarded by many as the film that should have won, unlike Avatar.
Melissa
Why would TSN be remembered ten years from now? why? you can’t make a blanket statement like that without detailed analytic reasons.
Everyone keeps saying ten years from this and ten years from now this. Give me proof that the general public considers Saving Private Ryan a better film than Shakespeare in Love in 2011? where are the statistics? no one knows what will happen ten years from now. People can only vote for the movie which moved them to the core and hope that future audiences see why.
I personally think TSN has no staying power. This whole “citizen kane” of our generation was a cheap marketing ploy and looking at box office numbers, it didn’t really work out as planned. When the next social network will be invented, TSN will die a naturally death. Who in 2020 or 2030 will relate to a one-dimensional and soul-less character like Sorkin’s Zuckerberg? who? I guess is no one.
Kristopher, never meant to implicate you in my critic of other pundits, I was just expressing my frustration with the way The King’s Speech has been mistreated simply because it has emerged as the late favorite.
Is there a sense of disdain toward comedy Best Picture winners? In a number of posts on this thread I’ve seen bashing of Shakespeare in Love and Chicago, two films I find incredibly worthy, exciting and fully realized in their own way (perhaps Chicago, which is responsible for bringing the musical back and creating a new language for the movie musical for a new generation, a little more than Shakespeare in Love). I’ve never gotten the backlash directed toward those two films, I take ten Chicagos and Shakespeare… over after school special travesty Crash any day of the week
I’ve never understood this criticism of The Social Network’s protagonist. So many people here seem to be asserting that film can’t be great if its main character is unlikable or “unrelatable.”
Have you all forgotten There Will Be Blood? Raging Bull? The Treasure of the Sierra Madre? All of those films and many more are considered outstanding despite having a deplorable protagonist. Will The Social Network measure up to those works over time? I have no idea, but let’s not throw around blanket statements like “TSN sucks because Zuckerberg is a jerk.” Never mind the other issue of many (including me) disagreeing that Zuckerberg is an evil character so much as classic tragic hero à la Macbeth.
Speaking of blanket statements, I can actually provide statistics to Afrika about Saving Private Ryan being more “treasured” than Shakespeare in Love, or at least as close to “proof” as we’re going to get. Go to ‘They Shoot Pictures, Don’t They?’ and check out their 1,000 Most Acclaimed Films list, arguably the most comprehensive collection of Best Of lists from literally hundreds of film writers and critics. Saving Private Ryan is #803. The Thin Red Line is #646. Shakespeare in Love doesn’t show up at all. Not good enough for you? The American Film Institute’s ‘100 Years…100 Movies’ revision has Saving Private Ryan listed, no Shakespeare in Love. While I don’t really value this list very much, the IMDb Top 250 has Spielberg’s film ranked at #43 and the ’98 Best Picture winner not even cracking it. Is any of this “proof” of one film’s quality over another? Not really, but the idea that there’s NO WAY to gauge public or cinephile sentiment on a film is simply not true.
There are other assertions from you, actually, that I find odd, like citing the box office numbers of TSN as some sort of failure. Ignoring for a moment plenty of beloved films that first released as outright flops, TSN made $96 million in the U.S. alone. Combined with the $117 million worldwide gross, and that’s hardly a financial outcome to sneer at.
Then of course there’s also the idea that The Social Network will “die a natural death” as soon as Facebook becomes obsolete (an unsupported prediction in itself), as if the film’s artistic merit was ever tied to Facebook as a technology. Dr. Strangelove didn’t suddenly become irrelevant when the Cold War was over, so why would The Social Network suddenly become worthless if our culture does away with social networking?
I’m not saying that The Social Network is the “next Citizen Kane,” or an instant classic. I honestly don’t know how history will treat it over time, even though I did really like it, and still do. But I do know that it had a far more interesting, thought-provoking, and relevant impact on our culture than The King’s Speech.
Craig, I definitely think Avatar should have won over The Hurt Locker. No question. And I know many people in the real world who feel the same way. It’s all opinion anyway, whether it’s the opinion of you and I, or AMPAS members.
As for MJS and Speaking English, the response to The King’s Speech speaks for itself. I watched the film on Christmas Day and the audience loved it. There was clapping and crying and lots of positive feedback in the theatre lobby afterwards. And I’ve heard similar stories about other audiences.
I think The Social Netowrk is a better film (slightly) than The King’s Speech. And the fact that it won nearly every critics award made me think it’s Oscar win was/is insurmountable. But the guilds have changed that, for sure. I’m still not 100% sold (though, probably 90%) that TKS will win. But I will say this …
The Social Network loses steam as it goes; after starting out BRILLIANTLY for over an hour.
The King’s Speech gains momentum as it goes (however slowly, and not nearly as rapturously as many have stated from audience reactions. Mine had no reaction, nor did I).
But the 2 movies are pretty equalizing, I think. Strong writing, strong acting, nice visual fluorishes, nice music. One movie is only slighlty better than the other in the varying components which make up the film. If I were to break it down:
Story – equally interesting
Directing – Fincher
Acting – The King’s Speech
Writing – The Social Network
Editing – The Social Network
Cin – The King’s Speech
Art D – The King’s Speech
Costumes – The King’s Speech
Sound – The Social Network
Music – The Social Network
But all of these categories could have gone one way or the other with me.
I truly believe that either of these 2 movies winning would be absolutely fine in my book (to encapsulate a year in cinema); or The Fighter, Black Swan, or Inception.
Kris, this is one of the most calm, down to earth posts about the current race that I’ve seen anywhere in the last few days. This is why I read incontention. Thank you.
Agreed (from Adam ^). Incontention is my favorite site to visit because of that level-headedness. Thank you.
Completely agree with 106 and 113. I didn’t find it a crowd pleasure either and all this standing ovation thing seems totally nonsense to me. Yes I find it a very good uplifting movie (with outstanding performance by Firth) but there was not a single moment where I felt overwhelmed or was forced to clap or got tears etc. In comparison, Slumdog was a completely different story. That climax (and that placement of song) had me totally overwhelmed, it filled me with joy and put a big smile on my face.
I remember smiling a lot during the end of TKS. And I remember laughter (from the audience) at all the appropriate spots. But I don’t remember swelling uplift or clapping or heated discussion afterwards. It did not provide the type of response I remember from something like a Slumdog, either. But I still think it’s a very good film across the board.
121
Avatar is popcorn fodder. A technical marvel that’s for sure, but there’s nothing thematically interesting in that film at all. For me, it was overlong, took itself far too seriously, and was, worst of all, forgettable. It will be remembered for it’s massive success and that’s enough, as it neither needed, nor deserved, a best picture win. There were at least five better films nominated last year.
The Hurt Locker is incredible, I don’t care what anyone says. It’s characters, themes and story reached me in ways that Avatar, with it’s paper thin characters and thematically lacking script, could never have hoped to do. The whole film, the last hour or so especially, is, for me, perfect, and will forever earn that film a spot on my personal favorites. Avatar is a film I’ll probably never watch again. That may be just me, but I’m proud that the Academy chose the best film rather than one that would have appeased the masses. I only wish they had done the same in 1997.
Craig, I’m not saying AVATAR ( I didn’t care for it) should have won, but lets face it people barely remember who won last year. Some people still haven’t heard of THL. Likewise with TKS, people are still talking about the Facebook movie and BSwan not the King’s Speech. I’m not talking about Cinephiles I’m talking about the Average movie-going public. I’m still drawing a blank about who won the year before last, was it Slumdog Millionaire? So the Oscars may raise a films profile, but at the end of the day its really the public who decides which film will be remembered for years to come. I’m sorry I just don’t think its The Kings Speech.
I hear lots of talk (on the streets) of The King’s Speech, Black Swan, The Fighter, True Grit, etc.. What I hear nothing of (except for a few lightning-in-a-bottle weeks back in October) is The Social Network.
Afrika,
A film holding up vs. Being remembered are two different things.
The Titanic may not hold up today as it did back then, but it is still remembered.
Which film won for the 2008 awards season, to be honest I can’t remember. The big critically acclaimed films, I along with many others remember from 2008 is Wall-E and The Dark Knight. Whether they still hold up today is a different story.
JJ1, Well anytime I mention The King’s Speech people are like what’s that?
Almost everyone who has a Facebook account or not has heard about TSN, whether they liked it or not.
This older guy at my job, doesn’t own a cell phone, or watch movies or use the internet asked me about The Social Network.
Different folks, different places, I guess. :)
My initial point, I was trying to make was that The Oscars doesn’t make a long-lasting impression on films as it did in the past. Maybe for that moment and that’s it. I’m not trying like so many others to put down one film to praise the other or make cracks about either film or their filmmakers. I’m not trying to argue that one film is better than the other. I haven’t even seen TKS yet. The Oscars are fun, but people take them waaay too seriously. I loved The Hurt Locker and was excited when it won, but I’m just being honest a lot of people still haven’t heard of it.
Just want to thank everyone a) for the kind words on this piece and b) for the thoughtful discussion it yielded.
Kris: I do want to point out that while I have certain disagreeances over this race with you, this piece was wonderfully written and unbiased, as it should be. Thank you for once again offering a level-headed, opinions-aside conversation starter alternative to the “who can yell louder than everybody else” crap being spewed by a certain blogger who will go unnamed, along with others to a much lesser extent.
Speaking from the Front Lines here. I’m from a film family (second generation), have close relatives in the Academy (on the acting and writing side), everyone I know is in the business, and no one — no one — understood the excessive, gushing reviews TSN received. No one.
At Academy screenings, at private screenings, in movie theaters, there was a sense of What’s the Big Deal? TSN was a good film with flaws — the regatta sequence? WTF? –, but not a great film. No one I talked to understood, or understands, why it was crowned a classic or the film of a generation (or whatever they said).
The honest reaction among those who make films, who live and breathe films, was one giant shoulder shrug. A “yeah, good film” reaction and not the “Oh my God, that was AMAZING!” response the critics and TSN supporters had.
Now, the reason why TSN has lost steam over the past two months or so and isn’t getting the support from the Guilds is quite easy: there was a feeling — and this may be why Fincher loses the Oscar (his huffing his way out of the DGAs before Hooper could even get to the stage certainly won’t help) — that those behind TSN assumed they had an Oscar sweep in the bag. From early-October there was an undeniable arrogance associated with the TSN group. Many in the Guilds, especially after seeing the film, found that attitude, that strut and premature congratulatory smugness, more than a little … I don’t know. Curious? Off-putting? Amusing? In any case, critics’ awards be damned, it didn’t make TSN any friends.
As for TKS, the screenings had a much more positive response and those behind TKS, seeing an opening larger than the Grand Canyon (especially after TSN’s opening weekend fell below expectations and it still has yet to crack $100M domestically) seized on the community’s discomfort with the TSN group’s arrogance and parlayed that into huge, durable momentum with a well-made, likable film which was happy to be what it was: a film. Not a classic or a piece of art or the film of a generation. Just a really good film people enjoy.
It also helps that people really, really liked it! Perhaps that has to do with the film itself or that TKS wasn’t compared to Citizen Kane (the hoo-haas of laughter that met that review are still ringing in my ears), or that King George wasn’t an unlikeable, unapologetic, arrogant douche bag who tried to screw his friends. Who knows?
I guess the point I’m trying to make is that the community had a better response to TKS than TSN regardless of what the Critics said and, at the end of the day, are more likely to reward movies they like made by people they like.
In the end, that’s why they’re voting for TKS.
Kris, thanks for the great article. I really love visiting this site.
I join the ranks of people who are disturbed by the amount of nastiness and name calling and censorship that taints this award season. I cannot believe it has come to that. What happened to civility, respect, tolerance?
It is particularly sad when you consider that out of the 10 nominees, there is not one weak link. They are all great movies to celebrate. I remember feeling overly excited for all the good movies to see this year. When you include the ones which could not get in the 10 nominees like Blue Valentine, The Way Back, Tangled, etc, this was a wonderful, wonderful year for movie lovers.
Of the 10 nominees, I am rooting for TKS, because like many other people, I came out of it feeling great, with a big grin on my face. That is what TKS has over TSN. If I had to rank them, I put rank them exactly the same. But at the end of the day one of them was uplifting, and the other was not.
TSN’s problem, IMO was that its subject matter and poor trailer (I hated the trailer) put people off. Otherwise its box office should have been higher. A pity really because many people who were turned off by these factors would have enjoyed it immensely. I had no intention to watch it despite being a Fincher fan, especially since because Timberlake was in it. Only after the great reviews started flowing in did it become a must see movie for me. I am planning to rewatch it on DVD. I still recommend it to everyone.
I would love people to get a perspective. TSN is a great movie, but not groundbreaking, earth-shattering, revolutionary. Nor does it require a higher level of movie appreciation to love and enjoy. It is a crowd pleaser. Good directing, clever script, great acting. All are attributable to TKS. TKS is 8.5 on IMDB, TSN 8.2. Both very solid, but none is cracking the top 10 or 20 or 100 for that matter. I just checked the top 250 on IMDB and Inception takes the highest ranking: #8 with 8.9, fantastic!!!
I still do not know which movie will take the big prize at Academy Awards. I believe TKS fans have all the right to cry “shame” if TSN wins after TKS sweeping all the guild awards.
A question for Oscar watchers with better memories. I feel like in the last few years, there is a trend to award the same people and movies over and over again. I don’t remember this was the case in the past. Especially in a year like this where there are so many good movies and performances, I would have enjoyed the spread of the wealth and was quite disappointed when all the critics awarded TSN as the best movie of the year. I would have expected the critics to make more daring choices and put the spotlight on other movies.
Hmmm. The surprise is that TSN is as much a piece of classical Hollywood film-making as TKS. Sorry, but the fact that the Academy can’t see that is a clear sign that these people for some reason (age?) can’t see beyond the hoodies and the programming lingo. I think that’s what’s rubbing a lot of people the wrong way.
Still, for me, the real generation-defining and truly innovative “big” movie this year was Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Everything about that movie — the editing, the soundtrack, the acting, the writing, the effects — defined the headspace of a large segment of 25-39 YO’s.
But it has to be said that neither of these movies need Oscar for validation. They’re going to have a lot of cachet as the millennium’s first attempts at grasping what video game and internet culture are doing to our relationship to the world. Scott Pilgrim is a lot more successful, but The Social Network wasn’t a fruitless stab considering it was made by a couple of boomers.
Thanks, Kris for sharing your very intelligent perspective with us. I’m so grateful that, unlike a couple other critics, you don’t flog us with your own preferences (your Top Ten sure is a unique and personal list!). You instead take a professional approach to evaluating the Oscar season, giving us an insider and informed look at how the race is playing out. I don’t align with all your film evalutions, but I highly respect them, because no one should demand everyone have the same taste. And shouldn’t respect – not affirmation – be the goal of every critic?
Personally I was entertained by TNS but was annoyed by its heavy-handed irony, glibness and cynicism. I loved TKS – Colin is my favorite actor – but I can’t say I was absolutely blown away by it.
It’s unfortunate that the rare movie that had the near-impossible trifecta of Golden Tomato ratings, ecstatic audience response (from ALL Generations) and billion-dollar box office has virtually no chance of winning Best Picture. I have no doubt that it will be watched over and over again long after the other BP nominees are figuratively and literally sitting on the shelf collecting dust. Too bad it was animated.
Also, the reason why TSN has been sweeping the critics awards is because, for all intents and purposes, it seemed to be the best of a weak year in American cinema.
Kicksotic: while I certainly found him sympathetic, I think bertie is far from an easy to like main character.
I also want to clarify a portion of this piece, as I now see that it hasn’t been read as I intended. This statement:
“And “The Social Network,” a pristine film that succeeds quite wonderfully at nailing the goals for which it aims, never deserved to have that kind of hyperbole thrust upon it in the first place.”
Would more accurately be read as:
“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.”
I’ve adjusted accordingly.
I also want to note that Kicksotic’s perspective is one I hear over and over and over again.
But you feel his struggle and frustration, DylanS, and you cheer his success. You don’t feel for or cheer for Zuckerberg or Saverin and certainly not Parker.
I suspect that’s why TKS is TKOing TSN at the most recent awards.
You don’t feel for Saverin? Totally untrue.
You’re right. You do feel for Saverin. He, according to this version of events, got totally screwed. But the support for Bertie in TKS is different. There’s a much clearer win for the character than there is for Saverin.
What the viewer is left with with TSN is what a total, untrustworthy, little douche bag this version of Zuckerberg is.
What the viewer is left with with TKS is that one can accomplish anything, no matter how personally debilitating, with hard work and the support of those who love you.
But, yes, you do feel for Saverin. Just not as much as you do for King George.
I personally didn’t feel for Bertie in TKS, and didn’t leave the theater with a smile. The movie I did leave with a smile however was The Fighter. As cliche as the end was, the characters and actors just win you over.
@ Kicksotic: I don’t doubt you’ve heard a lot of this from Academy members, but what I can’t wrap my head around is: why now? I mean, The Social Network is not any less audience-friendly than critical darlings like No Country for Old Men. Why is there a sudden resentment over *this* particular critically beloved work? Is it because of its subject matter or…?
Ahhh, how sweet Kicksotic. The Academy really, really likes it!
Thanks for authenticating every notion we’ve had as to why TKS is going to win.
Feel-good story? Check.
Good guys? Check.
(and most important) TSN+Critic Backlash? Check.
Funny thing is, I almost feel sorry for the people behind The King’s Speech, Tom Hooper et al. The media, critical and blogosphere backlash from this decision is going to be deafening in the very near future. Those who are asking us to give the Academy a break will join in the chorus. Bank on it.
Backlash against the critics Robert. It’s the elephant in the room.