So the nominations are in, and immediately, one general idea seems to dominate this Oscar season: These movies blow! What a horrible list of contenders. I don’t think I really liked a single movie on this list (I haven’t seen Michael Clayton yet). To be honest, I haven’t cared less about an Academy Awards since Crash won Best Picture…which was only two years ago. Wow, movies sort of suck lately, huh?
Anyway, I’d like to key in a few nominations that really piss me off/excite me:
1. Juno — BEST PICTURE??? BEST FREAKIN PICTURE?? Are you kidding me? Ellen Page for Best Actress I can deal with; it’s always a tough category to fill and Page did an excellent job. I can almost stomach Diablo Cody’s nomination for Best Screenplay, even though I despise about 30% of the dialogue in the film. And though Jason Reitman’s completely undeserved nomination for Best Director makes me want to laugh, Juno’s Best Picture nom makes me flat out angry. Who voted for this? No offense to all those involved, but you’re telling me that a movie featuring Michael Cera (Superbad), Jennifer Garner (13 Going on 30), Jason Bateman (Teen Wolf 2), and J.K. Simmons (Spiderman) deserves to be in the same category as films like Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Gone With The Wind and Forrest Gump? I’m happy for the Bluth boy representatives, but a best picture nomination? Come on!
2. Best Actor — This might be the worst Best Actor year I’ve ever seen. Ever. After Daniel Day-Lewis, who might as well clear a spot on his mantle for the award right now, the drop-off is precipitous at best. I can’t judge Clooney yet, but these other 3 clowns? It’s one thing to give Johnny Depp a nomination for his turn as Jack Sparrow, which was an iconic and fully realized performance. But now he gets a nomination for looking angry and brooding for 90 minutes in one of his most boring, lifeless roles to date? And Viggo, who was much better in both his last David Cronenberg film, A History of Violence, and all 3 Lord of the Rings films, gets recognized for playing a Russian mobster with a heart of gold? Please. Last, we’ve got Tommy Lee Jones, who is nominated for playing a part in a movie nobody saw. I guess if you have to throw somebody a nomination, why not good old Tommy Jones, right? Good old Tommy Jones.
3. Best Song – One song from Once and THREE from Enchanted? Guys, I know it’s a Disney movie, but three nominations? What a joke. What about the Eddie Vedder songs from Into The Wild? The other 10 great songs from Once? And the worst part is that one of those Enchanted numbers will probably win. On the bright side, we’ll likely get one of the best live performances in Oscar history when Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova take the stage to perform “Falling Slowly.”
4. Into The Wild — This movie got put on ice (ugh, that pun was awful), big time. The only meaningful nomination is for Hal Holbrook in the Best Supporting Actor category, a nomination he certainly deserves. Though he doesn’t appear until 2 hours through the movie, Holbrook’s work is first rate. He uses his scant screentime to cut right to the heart of his character, and doesn’t waste a single moment. It also snagged a Best Editing nomination, but nothing else. That’s almost as sad as starving to death in a bus in the Alaskan mountains.
5. Atonement — This movie was average in every single way. I think it says something that it’s the only Best Picture film not nominated for any lead acting awards or Best Director– this movie does not belong to be here. This spot belongs to The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, whose director Julian Schnabel is nominated, and whose screenplay, like the other Best Picture nominees, is also nominated. Saoirse Ronan was very very good in Atonement, and as long as Amy Ryan wins the Best Supporting Actress award, I won’t begrudge little miss Ronan the nomination. But I am annoyed that this run-of-the-mill, emotionless romance is taking up spots that more deserving films like Diving Bell and Into The Wild.
6. Best Actress — There were so few options that Cate Blanchett had to be nominated for playing Elizabeth a second time? This is Blanchett’s second straight year earning a nod (she has TWO this year, and she was nominated for last year’s Notes on a Scandal) and at the rate she’s scooping up these nominations, people better be prepared to talk about her as one of the best actresses of this generation. I’m not saying she isn’t, but to quote Michael Bluth, is she? Nobody saw Away From Her, and if that broad wins, it’ll be a sympathy win for her years of solid acting. Page is good, Linney is always terrific, especially when playing a sister or dysfunctional family member of some kind, but the only person who deserves to win this category is Marion Cotillard, a beautiful young actress who deftly played freaky looking singer Edith Piaf in all the stages of her life in La Vie En Rose. If Cotillard can’t win after following every rule of How To Win An Oscar (play a famous person in a biopic, be in a film with musical numbers, use makeup to become super ugly), there is truly no justice in the world.
7. Norbit — I don’t care if it’s for Best Makeup. Norbit is now officially an Oscar-nominated film. Kill me.
8. Marc Forster — I think Forster is a very interesting young director to watch. He’s not even 40, but he’s already directed Monster’s Ball, Finding Neverland and The Kite Runner (which was almost entirely shut out of the nominations), three films that are pretty good, but not great. You couldn’t ask for better material or actors for those films, and yet all three managed to only grab a couple of nominations between them. Is this a sign of greater things to come? Or is Forster doomed to only make pretty good movies?
9. Ratatouille -- Boy, does the Academy love Pixar screenplays. This year’s Pixar offering joins Finding Nemo, Toy Story, and The Incredibles as the fourth Pixar film to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay. That’s a pretty astounding figure when you consider that Pixar has only made 8 films. So here’s my question: what makes these screenplays so noteworthy? Is their ability to appeal to audiences of all demographics? Is it their balance of emotion, drama and comedy? Or maybe it’s just that everything sounds good when it’s underscored by Randy Newman songs about friendship? Whatever the case may be, I think the folks over at Pixar deserve a little more attention, as every script they churn out has a 1 in 2 chance of being nominated for a frickin Oscar.
10. George Clooney — Maybe you doubted him before, maybe you thought Syriana and Good Night, and Good Luck were flukes, but gosh darn it, George Clooney has quietly and undoubtedly become one of the greater figures in contemporary cinema. Where he was once just a good looking, smooth talking actor of films like Ocean’s Eleven, Out of Sight and The Peacemaker, Clooney has solidified himself as one of the best jack-of-all-film-related-trades around today. With his Best Actor nomination for Michael Clayton, Clooney has now been nominated in 4 of the 5 major Oscar categories (Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Director, Best Screenplay), and it seems like only a matter of time before he produces some great film to grab that final Best Picture nomination. He might be one of the sexiest men alive, but apparently, he’s also one of the most talented, so I think it’s a safe bet to say that any drama this guy does, whether he’s a writer/actor/producer/director, is a film that you can bank on as high quality cinema.
9 Comments
January 22, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I was disappointed that the score for There Will Be Blood did not earn a nom. From the opening scene, it was quite clear that the score was being employed to enhance the story telling and did so using a variety of musical themes.
January 22, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Thanks for the comment, Will. One of the first things I looked at when I saw the nominations was Best Score, explicitly to see if There Will Be Blood would get a nod. I personally HATED the score. A score should enhance the story, not steal focus from it, and in my opinion, the score was a major distraction. At times, it was incredibly powerful and eerie, but after two hours of the same loud, edgy strings, I was sick to death of it, and as an audience member used to certain sound cues, I was not entirely sure how to process the deafening, perpetual wall of sound.
I’m guessing Academy voters were split the way you and I are, which accounts for the absence in the music category. But surprisingly (for me at least, as I did NOT like this movie), nobody seemed to be divided on whether or not they thought this was one of the year’s best films, as it tied (with No Country For Old Men) for the most nominations of any film.
January 22, 2008 at 8:56 pm
[...] Here’s another interesting post I read today by Media Maven Musings [...]
January 22, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Wow – awesome, awesome list! I agree you with on 10/10.
January 22, 2008 at 10:36 pm
The Score for “There Will Be Blood” was disqualified because not enough of the music was original (i.e. a large chunk had been commissioned for an earlier work and other stuff was entirely non-original such as the Brahms piece at the end of the film), so I don’t think it even got to the point of members of the Academy debating it as a powerful narrative tool vs. distraction.
I always enjoy reading your opinions and the fact that you take reasoned stands and support what you have to say with well-thought out analysis. This is no different.
However, I do disagree with a couple of the things you said. First of all, I know you prefaced your Norbit comment with a recognition that it was for makeup, but I wouldn’t overstate the nomination or take away from the make-up people who created/implemented their designs. Why punish them for being a part of a dismal movie when their particular work was exceptional? I don’t think anyone will now think of Norbit as an “Oscar-nominated film” – people who pay enough attention to the category of make-up also understand how to cabin the importance and weight of that achievement in relation to the film as a whole.
Secondly, I would agree with you that in general the Best Picture noms are a bit underwhelming and I, like you, did not entirely love any of them so far and away that they should take the cake. But maybe that’s not so bad. Why do we always need a front-runner? Michael Clayton was an extremely well-done movie with well-written dialogue, methodical direction, and fantastic acting. I think that it could end up surprising people with a strong showing, or it might even pull out the Best Picture in a way similar to Crash — maybe as a credit to the ensemble and because the other categories in which it is nominated are simply too strong for it to come out on top. I think that direction and writing have other clearer front runners though Tony Gilroy did a great job as a first-time director, and unfortunately for Tom Wilkinson he played his role perfectly during the same year that Javier Bardem played the scariest man on film since Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs and George Clooney was too understated to beat out Daniel Day Lewis who absolutely deserves the Oscar.
Also, I’m not sure I understand why you’re so against Juno being a Best Picture nomination other than the fact that you didn’t particularly like the movie. In all honesty, I think it was overrated too. But it was new, original, fresh, and interesting, even if it didn’t turn out as well as I hoped it would. I personally don’t think it’s fair to compare every year’s best film nominations to some of the greatest films of all time, unless you’re willing to say that if the films in any given year are average or poor, we should be willing to consider films from every other year in American film history. Nonetheless, I appreciate your feeling that maybe this year’s films just weren’t up to snuff.
Next, I agree that ONCE deserved far more recognition in the original song category, and I think that it’s unfortunate that the film didn’t seem to fit into any other category because I think it was the most unique, interesting film I saw all year.
Lastly, I noticed that Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood), and the Coen Brothers (No Country For Old Men) were all nominated for both directing and writing Oscars. Do you think the Academy is rewarding ambition or execution? Both? What are your thoughts on that? I don’t know exactly what it signifies, if anything at all, but I found it worth noting.
So… now that you got your Top Ten observations of the 2008 Oscars out (in record time, I might add), you think you could put up a “Who Could Win, Who should Win, Who Will Win” analysis?? I’d love to hear your take.
Thanks again for taking the time to write and your dedication to your blog, Mave.
January 23, 2008 at 12:29 pm
One other question I had for you that I forgot to mention: why should it necessarily matter that no one saw the movie that Tommy Lee Jones was nominated for? I think (and think you would agree) that the Academy shouldn’t just vote according to popular preference and box office receipts? The Academy should reward good work – the best work – in each category and hopefully their recognition of that work through nominations and winners will spur the public to go see those films (or rent/download/Netflix/etc)… to see that amazing work that, they as the viewing and knowledgeable Academy, deem to be superior. I’m sure there are a lot of politics that go into Academy voting and nominations (such as the idea that Julie Christie will be rewarded for her BODY of work rather than this particular performance) and that may be at work for “Tommy Jones” too… but for me, the fact that he was given a nomination may be enough for me to rent In the Valley of Elah even though I didn’t see it in theaters.
Also, in case I didn’t mention it before, I entirely agree with you that Marion Cotillard should win that Oscar for Best Actress – I can’t recall a better performance by an actress off of the top of my head, which is not to say that they don’t exist, but nonetheless, WOW, what a performance… (and to connect that thought to the Tommy Lee Jones discussion, how many people saw either Away From Her or La Vie En Rose? Maybe more than went to In the Valley of Elah, but still not very many, which cuts entirely against the argument that because a film was not a solid box office performer, it should potentially not be given Oscar attention. –I know you’re not making that blanket statement, but I’m just throwing it out there.)
Thanks again for blogging.
January 23, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Thanks for the comments Daniel and Michael. OK, Mike, let’s take these one at a time:
1. Norbit — It’s Norbit bro, and it’s Oscar-nominated. I just found that funny. It doesn’t matter what it’s for, and I’m not taking anything away from the great makeup people. But for better or worse, Norbit is an Oscar-nominated film. Just wanted to point out this silliness.
2. I don’t care about having a front-runner or not. That’s no concern of mine. My issue is that if you take a list of all the Best Picture winners in history, can you honestly pick one of these nominees to join that illustrious list? Some might say There Will Be Blood, as I know quiet a few folks who love this movie fiercely. But I would disagree.
3. Just because a film is fresh and new (which I did not think Juno was anyway), that makes it a Best Picture nominee? So why isn’t Knocked Up nominated? 300? I am so against this nomination, I might be willing to call Juno the most undeserving Best Picture nominee I’ve ever seen.
4. As for the writer/director combo, I think there are two elements at work here. One is coincidence. 3 of the year’s best films, according to the Academy, were also the best written and best directed. This is a very common occurrence, and it just so happens that this year, several of the films were written and directed by one guy.
Second, I think that being in control of both the writing and directing of a film allows for greater control and execution of the vision for the movie, if its in the hands of a good writer/director. Nothing is lost in translation from page to screen, as the entire vision is formulated in the mind of one man (or two, with the Coen Brothers), who then executes this vision himself. Rather than exist as two separate entities, the writing and directing of the film can in this case inform each other, which can lead to a great film.
Usually, people who write and direct their own material are very good filmmakers, as it takes a whole lot more talent to be able to do this.
5. I was just poking fun at In The Valley of Elah. I’m sure Tommy Lee Jones is excellent in it, but the point of my comment was that I’m guessing many of the voters didn’t see it and are basing their votes on the word of their colleagues or guild awards or critical buzz.
And you’re welcome
February 8, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I have to agree with you about Juno and Atonemet and Once. Really, I’m on board all the way around.
Good work.
February 8, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Thanks Liza! Glad we agree!