OSCAR SYMPOSIUM
with your host Nathaniel and five very special guests
February 2009
KARINA: I assume we're dismissing foreign films, documentaries, films that played for a week in NY, anything released by a distributor smaller than IFC and anything else actually or virtually disqualified for a Best Picture nomination, right? If so, here's mine:
1. Synecdoche, NY, 2. Rachel Getting Married, 3. Vicky Cristina Barcelona, 4. Burn After Reading and 5. The WrestlerEven if this is "playing by the rules", I freely acknowledge that none of these had any "real" chance of getting the nomination, But that's the Academy's problem, not mine.
ED GONZALEZ: Hey everyone. Jumping into the fray...
Karina, sometimes I feel as if we share a brain, except for the part that's able to process and appreciate Synecdoche, NY, though I would have preferred screenplay nominations for that, as well as the witty and graceful but most definitely imperfect Burn After Reading, to the ones received by the smug In Bruges and condescending Frozen River, whose dead-baby joke has to be the most distasteful movie moment since the entirety of Crash.
By December, I had heard and read so many times how bad 2008 was for movies that I began to think I was living on the different side of the island as everyone else: I understand a lot of people waited in vain for "There Will Be More Blood" (or, in my case, "Inlandier Empire"), but any year that brings us films as rich in emotional and philosophical feeling as Rachel Getting Married, The Witnesses, Happy-Go-Lucky, Summer Palace, and Secret of the Grain (which would have made my Top 10 had I seen it in time) is one worth celebrating. Is the problem here that 2008 was a bad year for movies or are we just not going to seeing enough of them, and the good ones at that?
KRIS: Well, speaking for myself, I lost you at "emotional and philosophical feeling" as it pertains to Rachel Getting Married. A believable sister-sister dynamic between the two best-in-show principles wasn't enough to cancel out the consistency of false notes struck throughout the piece.So yeah, I saw plenty of movies this year. I just didn't like what I saw. I am, however, happy to see a like mind as it pertains to In Bruges.
ERIK: Ed, are those your five? If they are, then you win the Manohla Dargis Award for lauding the most little-seen movies of the year. The widest release of three of your five (Summer, Secret, Witnesses) didn’t even make double digits. I’m talking three theaters across the whole effin’ country.
Which is to say: More than people not seeing these movies, they’re not even getting the chance to not see them. This is not a comment upon your choices. This is a comment upon the system currently in place.
KARINA: To be fair, Summer Hours hasn't been officially distributed yet -- it played festivals, but IFC doesn't attempt to really roll it out until May, and then it'll probably just be New York, LA and VOD. Which is shitty, in some respects, because I'm sure there are Assayas and Binoche fans in Seattle and Chicago and San Francisco and wherever who would rather see the film on a big screen. But still, if we're going to talk distribution, IFC is more often than not one of the good guys, because at least they're making it possible for dozens of great foreign and tiny American films to be seen *somewhere* other than festivals. But I could talk about distribution for days, so...
NATHANIEL: I think Ed hit on the exact problem even if it gives Erik pause. People don't see enough movies. Plain and simple. I sometimes get angry comments about my repeated utterance that the voters don't see very many movies but I think the quotes available on the subject everywhere, the voters I've spoken with myself, and the small range of movies honored each and every year provide ample evidence that this is indeed the case. How to combat that problem? I haven't a clue. We'd need a Hollywood culture that's in love with the cinema itself. We'd need the town to be in it for the art. And does anyone believe we actually have that and that they are?
ERIK: What pause I felt was in the fact that Ed brought up three of the most little-seen, little-distributed movies of the year and then asked: “Is the problem here that 2008 was a bad year for movies or are we just not going to seeing enough of them, and the good ones at that?”
And I’m saying: Yes, it's that.
Actually I'm saying: It's less "bad" or "seeing" than "distribution."
Apologies all around for not making that clearer.
ED: Just to be clear, those films I mentioned weren't my Top 5 picks for Best Picture. I wrote that email before reading the one asking us for our personal picks for the category. I picked those out, more or less, arbitrarily. Seems that every year I have to apologize for living in New York City and having access to movies, all year round, that almost no one in the rest of the country has. No doubt us Manhattanities are privileged because of this, but you'd be surprised how many respectable New York critics didn't even bother seeing The Witnesses. You'd think the new movie by André Téchiné (Wild Reeds), would be some kind of event. But it's not. This is sad to me, and while the film probably never traveled far outside of NYC, it's been available on video for a while. Critics can take part of the blame for not working harder to bring small films like these to our attention, but then it's hard out their for critics nowadays (some don't even have platforms anymore to shout from), so maybe the cinephiles in the flyover states need to work a little harder, keeping track of the films that get praise early in the year but only play in big cities and are quickly forgotten, so they can add them to their Netflix queue. Maybe then we'll start seeing some unexpected surprises come Oscar time.
NATHANIEL: Gotcha and yes! But even if we fixed that problem... we'd still have the taste issue to contend with. Critics see a lot more movies than Oscar voters and they still lacked imagination in their prizes. It's Slumdog Millionaire's world. I get why people love it. It has a ton of energy and it's in love with itself (as I actually think great movies should be) and both of those things can be infectious but what is it about? Love and Destiny. But it has virtually nothing to say about them. For me it was a completely fast fade. And fast fade is the magic word for that Best Picture lineup. No surprise then that all of the movies are from November and December.
My favorite picture of the year is definitely Rachel Getting Married with WALL•E & The Class as chasers. All three of them wouldn't let me go after the first screening. There's just no fading. I remember specific and vivid details of alll three of them with more clarity than anything in Frost/Nixon, Slumdog or The Reader combined. I won't bore you with the details of my Rachel obsession but let's just say that I could name 10 moments IMMEDIATELY that are more emotionally resonant, idiosyncratically beautiful and have more depth of feeling than anything in all three hours of Benjamin Button and if I wanted this to be a Rachel Getting Married symposium I would. I know that some people don't like it but the only explanation I can make for its no-show status outside of Best Actress is that not enough voters saw it. Because, FACT: some people go crazy for it. All you need is a passionate fanbase to get a nomination. And if Rachel had been seen by enough voters it'd shouldn't have had much of a problem showing up in a few other places, you know?
So while I totally understand Timothy's Original Screenplay marathon I couldn't do that either because I'd just be thinking about Rachel & Kym the whole time.
If I controlled the world --by which I nearly always mean the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences because I'm pathetic like that -- I'd have also put The Wrestler and Milk in the lineup. It's the only Best Picture nominee that I can get behind. But if pressed I will admit to a certain absence of real passion for it. I love a lot of things about it but I can't imagine returning to it endlessly. That said, I do deeply dig how Penn burrows into the role (and I don't mean that in the "ooh, mimicry!" or "wow, he's acting gay!" way) but the way he finds all sorts of subtext for everything. He could just play a scene as many nominated actors do... but he always plays the before and after and the underlying texture of it. He is an amazing actor. But honestly, I still haven't decided if I prefer him to Mickey Rourke. Who doesn't need to burrow because he *is* Randy the Ram, faded glory and all.
KRIS: Some people = critics, Nat, because I talked to plenty of voters who frankly hated the movie. I didn't hate it. I liked it for the most part. But I wouldn't go starting any myths that voters didn't see it, because they did. It was one of the first screeners unleashed to boot, which means they got an early look before the glut of the Buttons came down the pike.
And regarding Slumdog, I would say the film is actually about the fact that you can't escape the events that shape your life, no matter how bad you might want to (and for warranted reasons). And that in the end, that is the beauty of it all: the good with the bad, and how they make you who you are. And I think the film says PLENTY about that, so just because a publicity campaign wants to make you think a film is about something (in this case, life and destiny), doesn't necessarily mean that's what it's about. That's simply the hook they've settled on to sell it.
Anyway ...moving to your point on the acting line-up, I have to say it hurts me to be in a position that I have to choose between Penn and Rourke. The former is so, so incredibly brilliant, for all the reasons you say and frankly, surprisingly so (despite the knowledge that he's a modern master of the form). The latter, meanwhile, merged seamlessly with a role in a way I haven't seen in a very long time. Plus, it's too difficult not to root for him. And aside from the work at hand, I have to say I'm so happy to see that he's done all the right things during the campaign for this thing, when we all expected him to fall apart.
I wasn't personally impressed with Langella outside of the film's final act or, Pitt, who suffers from the passive nature of the role (and irritates with an accent that feels forced at every step). Jenkins is sublime, of course, but I was sad to see there wasn't room for Michael Fassbender (though we all know it wouldn't have happened) or even Downey, who seriously made Iron Man the success it was. Ultimately I'm just happy Eastwood's growling didn't make the cut. And did anyone ever see What Doesn't Kill You? An exceptional performance from Mark Ruffalo that I think was award-worthy.
ERIK: Agreed on Langella and Pitt, but I was about the only person I know who wasn’t blown away by Richard Jenkins, whom I loved on “Six Feet Under.” I also like Kris’ thoughts on RD Jr. for lead for Iron Man. He and Pitt should switch places. They were each nominated for the wrong role.
