ok, ok, there is avatar, 12 years after james cameron brought us titanic in 1997, another year when it was personal to me. not because there was one particular film then that i wanted to win, but because i wanted titanic in particular to lose. there, i said it. the only oscar winner in history whose screenplay wasn’t even nominated. meaning, the story sucked. there, i said it. it won solely on its technical merits.
this is just my humble opinion. here’s my problem with movies whose only advantages are technical in nature: they don’t age gracefully. i watched titanic again a few weeks ago and i didn’t find the sinking scenes as impressive as i once did. that’s because filmmaking evolves, they advance rapidly. in a few years, many of the groundbreaking techniques now will be rendered obsolete and replaced by other groundbreaking techniques. so if you watch a technically charged movie with a flat story, say, ten years from now, all you get is a boring film with tired old effects. as opposed to movies whose clear advantages are their screenplay and the actors’ performances: they become classic. you can watch casablanca then, now and in the future, it would strike you the same way it did audiences over fifty years ago. not to say movies with a lot of sfx have no potential to become classic. look at star wars. puppetronics have since been replaced by cgi and the original jabba looks somewhat amateurish by today’s standards, but its story and character development make it timeless. i’d say the same for the lord of the rings. or maybe i’m just a geek.
this time, there is a lot of talk about avatar pulling another titanic on us. a very visually engaging show with lackluster story running for best picture but nowhere in sight for best screenplay nor its actors for best performance. admittedly, the movie was stunningly beautiful… on the surface. i did like it and even recommend it to my friends (as opposed to: i discouraged my friends from watching titanic. and they hate me for it). i am quick to emphasize that the sfx will blow their socks off, but the story is meh. it’s like ferngully in another habitable planet (or was that a moon?). or reverse dances with wolves as many critics put it. i do consider it one of the best films of 2009, simply because the whole spectacle was riveting. but i couldn’t stand the idea that it might win over
inglourious basterds.
it will break me in half. sfx, no matter how magnificent, should never precede a good story. titanic has done it before to l.a. confidential. please don’t let mr. cameron do it again. i have tremendous respect for him and his craft, he is indeed a visionary director, but we just can’t let sappy stories with full-on effects get in the way of our good judgment. i like james cameron for terminator and arnold schwarzenegger, but that feels like a very distant past now.
although, for the life of me, i don’t know how a “historical fantasy” can take the plum, especially one that strikes extra-sensitive chords. especially one that takes liberties with its free rein on historical facts surcharged with moral and ethical considerations, it’s almost sacrilege. it doesn’t help that it was written and directed by quentin tarantino, of course. i think it’s about time he gets the award. he ought to win one eventually, right? what better chance to do it than for this film.
here’s another extra-juicy bite to the unfurling awards red carpet: best picture forerunner the hurt locker, touted as the most powerful movie about the war in iraq, is directed by kathryn bigelow, only the third female ever to be nominated for best director. experts surmise she might just become the first female to win a major award for that category (she has bagged the earlier awards to support that claim). she happens to be james cameron’s ex-wife. ooooohh… wouldn’t it be too succulent to have an ex-wife pull the rug from under the ex-husband’s feet? i am also rooting for you, ms. bigelow! because i love uncanny plot twists!
the second-largest awards ceremony, the golden globes, announced their picks last december 15. as we all know, this is a reliable preamble to the oscars, although there have been occasions when one and the other disagreed on best picture (like sense and sensibility won the gg, then braveheart won the oscar in 1995, yet another year when the awards was personal to me).
here are the nominees for golden globe 2010:
best picture – drama:
avatar
the hurt locker
inglourious basterds
precious
up in the air
best picture – comedy or musical:
(500) days of summer
the hangover
it’s complicated
julie and julia
nine
best director:
james cameron – avatar
kathryn bigelow – the hurt locker
quentin tarantino – inglourious basterds
clint eastwood – invictus
jason reitman – up in the air
best screenplay:
it’s complicated
the hurt locker
inglourious basterds
up in the air
district 9
best actor – drama:
jeff bridges – crazy heart
george clooney – up in the air
colin firth – a single man
morgan freeman – invictus
tobey maguire – brothers
best actress – drama:
emily blunt – the young victoria
sandra bullock – the blind side
helen mirren – the last station
carey mulligan – an education
gabourey sidibe – precious
best actor – comedy or musical:
matt damon – the informant!
daniel day-lewis – nine
robert downey, jr. – sherlock holmes
joseph gordon-levitt – (500) days of summer
michael stuhlbarg – a serious man
best actress – comedy or musical:
sandra bullock – the proposal
marion cotillard – nine
julia roberts – duplicity
meryl streep – it’s complicated
meryl streep – julie and julia
best supporting actor:
matt damon – invictus
woody harrelson – the messenger
christopher plummer – the last station
stanley tucci – the lovely bones
christoph waltz – inglourious basterds
best supporting actress:
penelope cruz – nine
vera farmiga – up in the air
anna kendrick – up in the air
mo’nique – precious
julianne moore – a single man
some (insignificant) comments:
a deep and resounding yesssss for christoph waltz! he has won all supporting actor trophies so far, he should get the major ones too. he is nominated for both the screen actors guild and the golden globe, he’d likely be nominated for the oscar. he is downright fantastic, he is terrifying and hilarious in parts as an ss. who would have thought someone could pull off a role like that? thank you, mr. tarantino for picking up a little-known talent from austria and giving him a big break!
i’m somewhat tired of seeing merryl streep every year among the nominees. she’s a fantastic actress, no doubt, but it seems as if they just put her in because they can’t find anyone else to fill the slot. and i don’t want her to tie katharine hepburn’s long standing record for most oscar acting awards… that’s just me.
check out, mo’nique in the highly acclaimed precious! that darn funny girl can give a darn good drama performance too!
seriously, sandra bullock? was the year really that slack for actresses in comedy? i love sandra bullock, i think she’s funny and relevant in the film industry, but her performance in the proposal isn’t so good it could warrant a nomination.
come to think of it… looks like a weak year for comedy altogether. nine gets a nod despite all the bad press and the mainstream frivolity the hangover is there with it. don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing bad about the hangover, i just thought this category was for films along the caliber of four weddings and a funeral and moulin rouge.
hey look, tobey maguire’s up for best actor. i won’t say anything for nor against it, but didn’t jeremy renner for the hurt locker give a more critically acclaimed and more talked-about performance? shouldn’t his name be up there instead?
here’s hoping too that inglourious basterds win for best ensemble cast in sag!
