Awards presented February 22, 2009
The nominees were ...
... when they should have been ...
And the Oscar went to ...
Slumdog Millionaire. Starting in August, it made the rounds of film festivals, had an Oscar-qualifying limited release in November, and then went into wide release in January, just as the voters were filling out their Oscar ballots. Did the producers play some tricks to get attention? If so, it worked. Despite no acting nominations, it racked up an impressive eight Oscars: picture, director (Danny Boyle), screenplay (Simon Beaufoy), cinematography (Anthony Dod Mantle), editing, sound mixing, score, and even best song ("Jai Ho"). But looked at today, it seems like just a well-made crowd-pleaser, more dependent on its come-from-behind winner story than on any enduring strengths. It's
Rocky for quiz-show geeks.
... when it should have gone to ...
No, I'm serious. Why can't the best picture Oscar go to a small, serio-comic movie that's beautifully cast (Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes all deserved nominations), and doesn't overreach, the way so many Oscar winners do? I thought of giving my nod to
Milk, which is a very good movie, but which depends so heavily on Sean Penn's mimicry of Harvey Milk and on its earnestness in delivering a message. Or
The Dark Knight, which transcended the superhero movie with its mythic overtones and Heath Ledger's terrific performance.
WALL-E is brilliant, but only in its first half, and
Frost/Nixon again depends on actors turning into mimics. So when it comes right down to it, I'd rather watch
In Bruges unravel in its own quirky way again. It got only one Oscar nomination, for writer-director Martin McDonagh's screenplay. It deserved much more.
No comments:
Post a Comment