“Let me get this straight. The one’s about a precocious computer geek who’s also a bit of an asshole.”
“Yeah.”
“And the other’s about King George VI.”
“Yeah.”
“And King George VI has a disability.”
“Well, he has a stutter. I mean, it’s not crippling or anything — ”
“But it’s an obstacle that needs to be overcome.”
“Yeah.”
“And I assume, at the end, he does. And becomes King.”
“Got it.”
“While Zuckerberg ends up rich and alone and still an asshole.”
“That’s about the size of it, yeah.”
“And you thought the computer-geek movie was winning because… ?”
I can’t tell a lie — it was annoying having the Best Picture race so neatly explained to me by a friend whose interest in the Oscars extends as far as whether or not Mila Kunis is presenting an award, and who hadn’t even seen either of the films in question. It was annoying not so much because his argument was glib and reductive and sketchily informed, but because it was also absolutely right.
In the wake of a remarkably good week for “The King’s Speech” — starting with that eyebrow-raising Producers’ Guild win and ending with another pair of key Guild victories, taking in a cool dozen Oscar nominations in between — a lot has been written about reversals and returns, both on the course of this year’s awards race and the Academy’s own recent history. The seasonal shift in momentum from “The Social Network” to “The King’s Speech,” some will have you believe, represents a pushback against critical opinion, as well as a return to older definitions of “Oscar bait” that the last few years of Best Picture winners had called into question. Out with the new and in with the old, we’re being told, in more or less melodramatic terms.
Some of this may be true. I certainly don’t think American critics helped David Fincher’s film by hailing it with such oppressive unanimity — perhaps they thought they could exert the same pressure on the Academy that they did with “The Hurt Locker” last year, ignoring the fact that they’d picked a chilly vehicle without the appealing built-in “story” that Kathryn Bigelow’s history-making win gave last year’s atypical champ. Oscar voters can be encouraged by critics, but they can’t be strongarmed in the face of something they like better — as “L.A. Confidential,” a similar critics’ award sweeper, learned in 1997 when put up against “Titanic.” To paraphrase Bonnie Raitt, you can’t make the heart feel something it won’t.
And yes, that “The King’s Speech” is the first outright period piece (the oddly stateless 1980 setting of “No Country for Old Men” notwithstanding) to lead the Best Picture race since 2002 does give it the appearance of a throwback — especially when you consider that “Chicago” capped a period when only one contemporary picture eked out a win in 11 years.
But all this is to assume a) that “The Social Network” was ever the film to beat in the first place, and b) that Academy members lost their taste for comfortable, classy period drama in the last five-odd years. There’s much cause to doubt the first statement: that Toronto audience award was an early indication of how broadly appealing “The King’s Speech” is, and it was only the raft of precursor awards in December that overrode my initial assertion that Fincher’s film skewed too far from the average awards voter’s age and interests.
The second assumption, however, is more ambiguous: one that seems borne out by the last few Best Picture winners until you step back and take a long view of each year’s competition. The truth is that recent mainstream cinema has not been generous with the kind of lacquered, literate romantic canvases traditionally classified as “bait” in this game — at least, not ones that spoke to an audience as compellingly as Tom Hooper’s film has managed to do. “The King’s Speech” isn’t too different from, or appreciably better than, 2009’s well-appointed royalty soap “The Young Victoria,” but its alchemical reaction with viewers — happily, if coincidentally, coming at a time when Prince William’s engagement has amplified public interest in the royal family — lends lustre to a traditional format.
If you examine the last few Best Picture fields, you’ll see that the Academy wasn’t consciously rejecting the “King’s Speech” in each pack — just that there wasn’t such an option in the first place. Faced with a less familiar menu, voters still gravitated as far as they could towards tradition. “The Departed,” cool, kickass genre exercise that it is, seems an odd choice of winner until you consider that it was the most comfortably old-Hollywood title in contention, with the added sentimental draw of rewarding a beloved old master.
“No Country for Old Men” may be one of the grimmest, most oblique films ever to take the gold — but consider that voters’ only credible alternative was “There Will Be Blood,” a similarly bleak and rather more unhinged bit of Americana from a less storied filmmaker, and their vote for the Coen Brothers still reads like one for the establishment. (Cut-glass period romance “Atonement” had all the set-dressing of a frontrunner, but its tricksy literary switchbacks could never have had the Academy’s heart — as good a case study as any to prove that it’s not enough merely to look like bait.)
“Slumdog Millionaire?” Exotic international trappings swept to one side, its rags-to-riches, against-all-odds love story is a hybrid of multiple well-worn Hollywood storytelling structures — the more immediately accessible alternative to the fussy formal fantasy of once-presumed frontrunner “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Finally, the interior narrative of “The Hurt Locker” may not have contained too many Oscar-friendly hooks, but the exterior narrative of its unlikely battle with the behemoth that was “Avatar” did — enough to convince warier voters to give the small, difficult picture a look. The film was its own underdog story.
It’d be silly to suggest that these external factors are chiefly responsible for the win in each case: they’re all highly effective films that, as with any Best Picture winner, got to the podium because a sizeable proportion of voters responded to what they saw (and yes, to nod to Harvey Weinstein’s savvy new campaign line, felt) in the movie theater. “The King’s Speech,” assuming it follows suit, is no different: a number of writers who follow the race (myself included) may think it a less thoughtful or adventurous choice than in years past, but to the voter, their decision-making process remains consistent.
Neither should we encourage them to approach their ballots differently: the voices pre-emptively scolding voters for picking the less “significant” nominee aren’t too far removed from those who might have suggested, back in 1943, that “Watch on the Rhine” was a more “relevant” choice than “Casablanca.” We all want the Academy to think as we do — hell, if I had my way, this whole tedious contest would be scrapped in favor of a boxers-‘n’-ballerinas showdown between “Black Swan” and “The Fighter” — but we shouldn’t panic, much less assume a change in the guard, when they don’t.
There’s as much throughline between “Slumdog Millionaire,” “The Hurt Locker” and “The King’s Speech” as there was 20 years ago between “Driving Miss Daisy,” “Dances With Wolves” and “The Silence of the Lambs,” so talk of the Academy’s return to old habits is tenuous at best. Despite appearances to the contrary, as my disinterested friend sussed out, voter preferences don’t change much from one year to the next; the films to which they are applied, on the other hand, do.
[Photos: The Weinstein Company, Columbia Pictures, Miramax Films]
Comments
59 responses to “THE LONG SHOT: It was always you”
That opening conversation was hilarious, but I think that some of the Oscar champs of the last few years are less explainable than you think. Maybe that’s just me feeling spoiled for loving the victors of the last several years, but regardless of the film it was competing against, the fact that NCFOM was in such a race to begin with is pretty amazing to me.
Do you really think that “There Will Be Blood” was “similarly bleak and rather more unhinged” than “No Country for Old Men?”
I would make the case that NCFOM was an Inhuman film, where TWBB was a film of Human failure…but still Human.
In any case, I certainly preferred “Michael Clayton” that year.
Conor: Look at that year, though: traditional options were thin on the ground, so a prestige literary adaptation with critical kudos, Cannes cache and the familiar brand of established American auteurs (who had already been welcomed into the Oscar club) was the next best thing. It’s a bold choice, no mistake — and, I still think, a good one. But what were their other options?
Bill: We’re talking fine degrees of difficulty here, of course. But I do believe “There Will Be Blood” is the more eccentric auteur statement.
Guy, this is a thoughtful take–I don’t want to get too reductive about “in with the old”, but I do think there are some things here that are interesting and worthwhile to ignore discussion of: the situation in the past few years seems at odds with how many commentators conceputalized some of their long standing preferences.
This is from Tom Shone’s blog:
Wake up, people! The only reason the academy has been unable to reward a film like Driving Miss Daisy or Gandhi recently is because Hollywood doesn’t make films like Driving Miss Daisy and Gandhi any more. The entire middle class has dropped out of the filmmaking ecosphere. Liberal weepies are dust. Sweeping epics are done. Loin-cloths are out. The only examples of ‘Oscar’ movies we’ve had recently have been duds like Invictus and The Blind Side, undernourished and overlit b-versions of the kind of film that used to get ‘A’ treatment and clean up at the awards. The academy haven’t lost their taste for Oscar bait. They just haven’t been let near a healthy enough specimen. They’re like drunks who’ve managed to stay dry for several years not because they have lost their taste for alcohol but because nobody has offered them a drink.
Earlier when “Social Network” looked strong, he discussed quotes from Harvey Weinstein and Scott Feinberg claiming AMPAS’ members have broader tastes than some might have thought. The observation that recent choices differ from the past was critical, but he explained that differently: the dearth of “Oscar” movies as a result of the tentpoles and indiewood mentality in the studios.
What I find fascinating about this account is that I think it fits these contradictory observations quite well and actually explains why there wasn’t a movie they really loved these past years or why these historical drama projects haven’t been so successful lately: collectively fewer resources are going into this sort of movie.
I do, think what problems it has, it is worthy of consideration.
*quote should be before “Wake” and end at “drink.”
This sort of felt inorganic, like Guy was putting a circle block into a square hole, rationalizing ideas that are far less patterns than caprices. Still, an interesting piece, and so much better than a lot of the drivel bouncing about on the interwebs.
Once you start picking apart 2006-2009, the moral of the story is that any Hollywood film can be dressed up like a piece of “Oscar bait” if you look at it the right way.
A piece which lays out perfectly everything I’ve been saying all season long. That ‘The Social Network’, if it won, would have to do it the’Amercian Beauty’ way. A contemporary film full of unlikeable characters that started out winning, and then just kept winning because momentum can be a bitch to stop, and nothing posed a serious threat. I didn’t see it in the vein of recent critically lauded winners because there was no story, no angle for voters to get behind that made them want to support it. It had to do it being simply being considered “better made” by everyone and we were all fooled into thinking this was the case for a while, because this is never enough for a win.
I was wrong about one thing, I thought ‘The Fighter’ would be the heart vote that might steal the prize, but as they did in Toronto when I first saw the film, audiences just LOVE ‘The King’s Speech’. And it’s not stuffy old folks at all, it’s mums, its teenagers, its movie buffs, its everyone. It’s almost impossible not to have a good time and be entranced watching it. Its ‘Chicago’ with a heart. Even I fell in love with it at TIFF and I’m no period biopic fan. So no, tastes haven’t changed at all, the Academy is still a meeting place in the middle, it’s just a question of where the goal posts are every year, and what that x factor film is that people root for.
I do like what you say about the critics “opressive unanimity”. It seemed clear to me they were enamoured with their influence with ‘The Hurt Locker’ last year and were collectively trying to raise “the critics film” into the winner’s circle again. I liked the film immensely and recognize it was the concensus choice of the year, but I’ve never found myself so jaded about a critics season. I hope next year we see a return to critics as independant thinkers, not lazy rubber stampers.
There Will Be Blood is a critique on capitalism and religion. There really wasn’t anything eccentric about it. In fact, it’s a good thing the liberal Hollywood didn’t go the easy route by picking it
Robin: Good points all round. The key thing to note with American Beauty, however, is that it’s a film that did, I suspect, generate a considerable emotional response from Academy members — a more visceral one than the softer (and, of course, Weinstein-backed) alternative of The Cider House Rules. (Perhaps the latter film might have been more of a threat if the industry hadn’t still been smarting from Weinstein’s tactics the year before. Happily, we’ll never know.)
Perhaps what The Social Network lacks for Academy voters is a plastic-bag moment.
You may be right Guy, all it takes is a few moments of heart-on-you-sleeve emotional power to win them over. ‘Chicago’ had everything, EVERYTHING going in its favour the year it won, but was still only barely able to hold off ‘The Pianist’ on Oscar night. Why? Because noone can honestly say they were moved by the film in any way, even those who love it (myself included). It was probably saved by two factors: the subplot of the innocent Hungarian woman, and that Zelweger and Gere still manage to portray sympathetic characters you can’t help but root for regardless of moral considerations. It can’t be said enough, but the heart wants what it wants and if you follow that, you’ve found your winner.
I know American Beauty is often credited for having the Zeitgeist factor helping it win best picture, but what exaclty was it saying at the time? Maybe it’s because I was too young to remember, but what did it have to say about the moment in time at the end of the millenium?
Drew, one point that many took from it, was that suburban life sucked. ;-)
Well I guess tha makes sense. Come to think it there was also Fight Club and Matrix that year. Both of which, in their own, way were about fighting against conformity.
The single best article written about this topic so far. Bravo, Guy.
The 2007 Best Picture line-up was sooo dark! I actually thought that out of that bunch, “Juno” had all the makings of a winner. It had the highest box-office of the five and was a much much more light-hearted fare than the other four. But alas, it was an indie comedy, and it couldn’t overcome that.
Anyway, this is a great piece as always Guy.
But all this is to assume a) that “The Social Network” was ever the film to beat in the first place,
Even if it was, the Oscar campaign got away from “The Social Network”. Even as a “Best Picture” among critic’s awards, it’s hard to paint “The Social Network” as an “Oscar Best Picture”. Let’s say that reductively that the film was about a guy who becomes rich and all the while he was an asshole, but in the end we’re suppose to empathize with him because he’s lonely? I think I just described another Oscar Best Picture loser called “Citizen Kane”.
There’s still time for “The Social Network” to campaign, but the studio behind it not the Weinstein.
And while I certainly agree that “Slumdog Millionaire” has a narrative approach that is “classic oscar”, I still think people completely undermine the fact that it is a Danny Boyle film, and as such, features of of his non-classical, unconventional modern stylings. I mean seriously, did you ever think there would be a Best Picture winner shot almost entirely with ductch angles? Not to mention a sequence featuring “Paper Planes” by MIA. Not complaining, of course, but I think it’s still worth pointing out.
A bit off topic, but can we talk for a moment about how fucking incredible the 2007 slate could have been? For me, at least, if you switch out Juno and Atonement and replace them with Zodiac and The Assassination of Jessie James, you’ve got one of the greatest slates of nominees in history. Could just be me though…
Craig: I’m totally with you on “Zodiac” in, but not for either “Juno” or “Atonement”, but instead for “Michael Clayton”, which I always found a bit over-hyped.
The Social Network already lost the Oscar so can people stop trying to take away its critics’ wins. It’s painful to endure as a fan. Maybe there is no conspiracy and critics really liked TSN and thought it was the best movie of 2010. Critical unanimity might have hurt what tiny Oscar chance TSN had but I’m glad Fincher, Sorkin, and even Eisenberg got recognized by them.
Incredibly written, this is a memorable piece of writing. I am beginning to see The Social Network as becoming a modern day Citizen Kane, even though I am still guessing that Fincher will take home the prize for Best Director since Tom Hooper is a “freshmen” as you once put it.
Interesting article, although the comparison between The Social Network and Watch on the Rhine made me gag a bit. I just saw Watch on the Rhine a few weeks ago, and all I can say is I’m glad it did not win best picture. Other than the performance by the grandma (who was deservedly nominated for Best Supporting Actress) and it’s anti-Nazi stance (which it lays on like gravy at Cracker Barrel), there was not much else redeemable about the film.
Also, I have to absolutely get on board the 2007 band wagon. Amazing year. It just might be my favorite year in cinema. Other than No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, I would have love to seen any films such as Hot Fuzz, Death Proof, Zodiac, The Assassination of Jesse James, I’m Not There, or The Darjeeling Limited nominated in place of Juno, Michael Clayton, and Atonement, which I did not care for that much.
Interesting piece, and a good read, I think, on how even the ostensibly adventurous choices of late fit into the Academy narrative. And it’s interesting to note that if Slumdog hadn’t become the certified, unstoppable puppy dog eyes choice as early as September, a late surging, handsome prestige picture like The Reader could’ve swooped in and won. Harvey can work magic, but he needs to have an ostensibly heartwarming film to do it.
Jesus Christ, that’s at least one too many “ostensibly”s for one night, let alone one comment. The post that beer wrote.
DylanS
Loved Michael Clayton, which features my favorite Clooney performance, especially in the final scenes. I despise Juno, so that would obviously be my first choice to replace, as there were probably dozens of 2007 films I’d take over it. Atonement was well done (that tracking shot is unforgettable), but didn’t do much for me. Zodiac and Assassination are both sprawling masterworks, in my opinion, with the former being Fincher’s best film to date.
I was talking to two different friends seperately today (both have Ph.D.s (i say this because some bloggers with hysteria claim only smart people can appreciate TSN). It is interesting that they both said that they liked TSN, but then they didnt care much about it. The also said they really LOVED TKS! They couldnt stop talking about different scenes in the TKS .
And this was not the first time I heard that. People , at least the ones I talked to, think TSN is a good movie, but they really love TKS.
Please, can we give a rest to these totalizing assumptions about how “people” feel about a film based on anecdotal evidence? I like The King’s Speech fine, I’m not crazy about Toy Story 3, I love The Social Network, and I love The Fighter even more. I’m also getting a PhD. And I’m certain that none of these details tell you much about how “people” feel about these films, although I’m sure your two friends are lovely.
qwiggles, there are endless examples of this though. A lot of people have said this…I have friends from different circles who also said that TSN is good, but they don’t think it’s great….while others LOVE TKS
AJ: Nobody’s “trying to take away” The Social Network’s critical success. You’re right that critics’ awards have their own distinct value beyond merely their significance as precursors, and the film has been handsomely acknowledged in that regard. No need to get defensive, nor to present the film as any kind of victim.
Patriotsfan: I’m being a tad flip with the 1943 example, but I’m not suggesting the two films be compared. I’m merely saying that the “right” answer in the head-versus-heart argument isn’t always the same one from year to year.
Indeed, if ever a year warranted 10 slots, it would have been 07:
No Country
TWBB
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
————
Into the Wild
Sweeney Todd
Assass. of Jesse James
Zodiac
Diving Bell & the Butterfly
others that wouldn’t have embarrassed themselves in the 10:
The Savages
Eastern Promises
Lars & the Real Girl
American Gangster
La Vie En Rose
Hairspray
Once
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma
Bourne Ultimatum
Patriotsfan: Thanks for the “Hot Fuzz” love.
Glad that I’m not the only one.
qwiggles,
Since some pathetic bloggers insist that someone needs to be smart to fully understand and appreciate TSN i was just trying to make a point!
And yes, those little details are important as voters are humans like us and when they make their decision they dont do that in a vacuum. They are affacted by what other people think about movies too.
By the way, in my PhD program I learned that (and now I am teaching it), anecdotal evidence can be important, espeically for decisions about experiential products like movies (not conclusive but important!) I think you havent come to that topic yet:) Good luck with your studies:)
Ahh Eastern Promises, the first film that started my love of following the Oscar race with any real interest. Definitely would have been in my 2007 Best Pic list, along with Zodiac and The Assasination of Jesse James (and of course No Country and TWBB)
Hot Fuzz is always my answer for “favorite movie.”
JJ1
I really wish they’d gone ten that year (though I must confess, Juno still wouldn’t have made my list).
And good luck with your spelling, Dr. Sertan.
Kyle, I remember seeing Eastern Promises in September and thinking “this is a GREAT start to the Oscar season” …….
and then I saw very few movies that matched it’s quality (throughout the next 4 months).
I’m Not There (2007): Best Picture, Outstanding Performance by the Cast of a Motion Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor (Bale), Best Supporting Actress (Blanchett), etc.
And there’s ANOTHER acclaimed ’07 film that could’ve found it’s way into 10.
I forgot to mention it above because I forgot it (and kinda hated it). But it deserves to be in the conversation, for sure.
qwiggles,
now i see your level and no I wont go there! Sometimes even doctoral studies cannot change some things!
2007’s line-up wasn’t dark enough. Zodiac being denied a single nomination in any category was a travesty.
Of course, Ratatouille should have been nominated for Best Picture as well.
I should stress that when I asked what other options voters had in 2007, I was referring to traditionally Oscar-friendly fare, not just to quality films — of which there were obviously many.
Fair point, Sertain: spelling digs are douchey. What I should have said was, yes — my “anecdotal evidence is the greatest” class starts after recess.
[…] THE LONG SHOT: It was always you […]
I’m Not There didn’t do anything for me at all.
I think this was a perceptive article, not only the audience, but the actual people who make the movies, almost all the guilds preferred TKS to TSN.
I think TSN an over praised film. I was struck, by the critics unanimous support of this genuinely too talky TV movie. I think the majority of critics are white men, and they liked male cat fight, disguised as intelligent more because of it’s subject matter, than the actual work by the writer, and director. Smart topics don’t always equate to smartly made movies. I think the criitcs love Fincher, who’s body of work is so male driven, especially The Fight Club, which is a huge macho slug fest. Hooper’s body of work is much more impressive than he was given credit, he did HBO’s John Adams, and Elizabeth I, those two alone are more ambitious and technically overwhelming than anything Fincher, has done, with the exception of B. Button, which I like because of it’s originality, and complexity.
Simply put, think TKS is a better directed, written, and certainly acted movie, than TSN.
So did the people who make movies. Because you actually are moved by a movie, does not make the movie maudlin in all cases, in THS it is because of the superb film succeeding, and being smart too.
I don’t think the gap is as big as you say ^. But I do think that TSN is overrated and TKS is a bit underrated.
46, The Alliance of Women Film Journalists picked it as their #1 movie of the year. African American Critics also went for it, though they opted for Christopher Nolan on director. Most of these groups of critics went elsewhere when “Fight Club” and “Zodiac” came out. Many prominent female film critics included The Social Network on their end of the year lists: Ann Hornaday (#1), Stephanie Zacharek, Dana Stevens, Lisa Schwarzbaum (#1), Christy Lemire, Betsy Sharkey, Manohla Dargis, Claudia Puig, among several others.
sckofrtwngcrp: You can certainly disslike Fincher’s films, but to write them off as not being “ambitious and technically overwhelming” is as blind a statement as I’ve ever heard. In pretty much all of his films, Fincher has subtley incorperated complex CGI sequences and elements in such a way that, as your statements above clearly indicate, they blend right into the framework of the physical footage. He not only utilizes it, but is the MASTER of technically ambitious filmmaking.