Here's The Problem With What Happened Last Night At The Oscars
It's good to know that the Academy doesn't learn from past mistakes.
When Tom Hooper received the Best Director Oscar last night, I died a little inside. Fincher didn't move, but then again, he didn't really move at all last night. I wondered if he was perhaps dead in his chair and someone had painted eyes on his eyelids. Maybe he was thinking that this was all crap and it didn't matter. Maybe he saw the hype train go down the tracks for The King's Speech and knew what was already going to happen. I heard all the talk. I heard the rallying cries behind The King's Speech, but still I fought. You're crazy, I thought. How could you not award Fincher for The Social Network? Everything in that picture was perfect. If you truly look at a Director being at the helm of the entire creative process, then Fincher was the guy. The acting, editing, writing, cinematography and music were all perfect. Nothing more outstanding than the rest. Just a perfect balance. I thought it was a no-brainer that he would win the award. But then everyone began to talk. King's Speech this and King's Speech that. Yes it's a good movie. Yes the performances were great. But it was familiar. It was easy. I can confidently say I have never seen a movie like The Social Network. I have seen several movies like The King's Speech. So I began to resign myself to the inevitable and I said to myself and anyone who would listen - if The King's Speech gets best picture, I'm fine with that. Just don't screw Fincher.
So when they announced Tom Hooper all I could think was "here we go again." It's Scorsese all over again. In a few years from now The King's Speech will fade from memory as just another good period piece. The Social Network, on the other hand will continue to thrive as a film that defined our time. And there will be regret. "Huh, maybe Fincher should have gotten the Oscar" people will say. And then Fincher will go on to make good film after good film and about 10 years from now Fincher will win best director for a lesser film. One that was good, but not deserving. And I'll root for him. And probably blog for him, as I did for Scorsese.
It won't be right. But I'll do it. Because this is the way the Academy works. And Fincher deserves it.
![[Valid Atom 1.0]](valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom 1.0 feed")
7 comments:
On the plus side we can now say, "Academy Award winner Trent Reznor." That was easily the highlight of the night for me. Oh yeah, that and the Methany kid's acceptance speech for Best Live Short film. Great hair!
When will you guys learn depending on the academy to do the right thing is like waiting for politicians to get honest and work for the people? It doesn't mean ANYTHING. For fuck's sake, just stop watching this shit. Enjoy what gets put out there. The awards don't mean shit.
This is true J.D.
The one pleasant surprise from the evening was seeing Reznor up there. We've discussed this in the past. It is a fantastic soundtrack and very deserving.
Sardonic Scribe,
You guys? I'm part of a group? What's the group called... Whiney Academy Awards Bloggers Who Don't Post Much And When They Do It's To Complain About A Stupid Award Show? Or as I like to call it WAABWDPMWTDITCASAS. Nah. I get the Oscars. I understand awards and what they mean - afterall, I'm in advertising. But like I posted way back at the beginning of this blog, I always want the Oscars to get it right. It's true they never do, but I will still want them to. And yes they don't mean anything, except to validate my feelings so that I can remain insufferable whilst I throw it back in everyone's faces. That didn't happen this year so I'm pissed.
Ok, ok. Touche Piper. Didn't mean to take it out on you. I just woke up to the morning shows kissing the collective ass of the Academy and what I should have said is I'd like to take a knee and launch simultaneous RPGs at EVERYONE involved with the Oscars. Love the site - death to Hollywood schmoozer types.
I see your point - 'The Social Network' is brilliant and deserving of the award, but I think that the 'King's Speech' was, too, just less obviously so. 'The Social Network' is more flash and so the direction is more obviously brilliant, but both films created an amazing story and experience out of uninspiring and risky premises. They were equally deserving, but one had to win.
www.filmstockist.blogspot.com
Hello, fellow LAMB. Just wanted to let you know that The LAMMYs are coming up and we are hoping for the best voter turnout for the nominations ever. Every LAMB #1-900 is eligible to vote (and to win!), and that includes you. To participate, please go to this site: http://www.misterpoll.com/polls/521956
Thanks!
Simon (Screen Insight, aka, LAMB #341)
I'm honestly confused about how people can say that they haven't seen a film like that before. And usually when I say something like that I'm being sarcastic (usually a truer statement would be if I just came straight out and said 'I can't understand how you can be that much of an idiot and still dress yourself' but that would be too trollish to actually say) but here I literally mean it sincerely. For transparency I should say I preferred the King's Speech, primarily because a) the lying about someone's life and their faults was less than in Social Network, and not done willingly by the filmmakers. And b) I felt the ending was far more engaging and moving, I walked away taking more from The King's Speech than I did The Social Network. Simple as that. And I accept so many other people saying The Social Network is one of the best films they've ever seen, because that denotes that it was just simply to their tastes; they got a lot more out of it than most other films.
But how can you say (not just against The King's Speech, but any character focused film) that you had never seen another film like it before? Sincerely, what are you referring to? It's a well made film, but I can't think of one production value that isn't a mainstay of production, a perfectly reasonable but familiar value available today...
Post a Comment