A quick informal post judging the merit of directors who got nominated for directorial nods without a Best Picture Oscar Nomination:
1998-Peter Weir: The Truman Show-I tend to think of Weir's strength as delicately structured epics with sweeping visuals. "The Truman Show" was certainly a shift for Weir but he's a great director, brought great performances in his cast, and this is one of the best films of 1998 period. With snubs for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress, I'm glad this film got rewarded somewhere.
Grade: B+
1999-Spike Jonze: Being John Malkovich is more of a Charlie Kaufman film than a Spike Jonze film. This was earlier in Kaufman's career, so the Academy probably wasn't aware that Kaufman was the genius who made it happen. It's also unfortunate that Frank Darabont got snubbed here for a film that's still highly regarded and when one considers that he also got snubbed for "The Shawshank Redemption." If they were going to snub "Green Mile", I would have preferred the Academy have gone with "Talented Mr. Ripley" and Anthony Minghella.
Grade: C-
2000-Stephen Daldry: Billy Elliot- I'm not too opposed to Lasse Holstrom getting snubbed since he got nominated the year prior and "Chocolat" is very much Oscar-bait film of the least deserved BP nom of the decade. But why Daldry? Rob Zemeckis, who's always quite innovative even if he's not recognized very widely for it, made "Cast Away" ring with great intensity despite the fact that it was a one man show. Cameron Crowe made a very personal picture in "Almost Famous" as well. The Oscars love Daldry as evidenced by "Hours" and "The Reader"'s accolades. On the other hand, "Billy Elliott" wasn't yet at a point where Daldry started getting overly sappy.
Grade: C+
2001-David Lynch: Mulholland Drive and Ridley Scott: Black Hawk Down: Both great directors who deserve nods so no complaints here. Still, it's too bad Todd Fields wasn't nominated for "In the Bedroom."
Grade: A-
2002-Pedro Almodovar: Talk to Her: This nod baffles me the most. First, I would have thought foreign film enthusiasts might have gravitated toward Alfonso Cuaron's "Y Tu Mama Tambien" or "Monsoon Wedding" or at the very least, there would have been a foreign film bote split. However, Alexander Payne, who was 3 for 3 with critical hits at the time, however should have been a strong contender for a directorial nomination, Then there's Todd Haynes' Sirk send-up "Far From Heaven", Sam Mendes' "Road to Peridtion" or critical darling Spike Jonze's juggling of two Nicholas Cages with a great ensemble in "Adaptation" and Alfanso Cuaron himself. I might be able to imagine Pedro Almodovar's body of work being rewarded but it was such a competitive year. The nomi
Grade: B
2003-Fernando Meirelles truly deserves a nomination but I was just baffled by the year in which it came. "City of God" was nominated for the Golden Globes, a BAFTA and the Broadcast Film Socety in 2002. How many voters would even assume it was still eligible the following year?
Grade: B+
2004-Mike Leigh already had a nomination for "Secrets and Lies" and while "Vera Drake" had a deserving accolade it seemed like not much more than a biopic. In the meantime, Bill Condon (Kinsey), Michael Mann (Collateral) or Mike Nichols (who's Closer was somewhat of a comeback) were waiting in the wings
Grade: D
2006-Paul Greengrass: United 93: This was was a pretty good pick for the alternate slot since he's Australian (not exclusively foreign-language), chopped his teeth with the Bourne Supremacy and made a hit picture out of an ensemble (not a single star in the United 93 cast)
Grade: B+
2007-"Julian Schnabel for the Diving Bell and the Butterfly": Another instance in the 2000's where the last slot went to a foreign director. This is a fairly good entry for a genre that's vastly overrewarded (see: "My Left Foot", "The Sea Inside", "Elephant Man", "I Am Sam"). There were a few other directors like Sidney Lumet, Ridley Scott, and Tim Burton who would have been nice to see in this category as opposed to Schnabel who was essentially a newbie.
Grade: B-
Showing posts with label Charlie Kaufman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Charlie Kaufman. Show all posts
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Monday, January 29, 2007
The campaign to improve oscar acceptance speeches
Because I'm trying to get some of the attention from all those oscars-obsessed sites, I thought i'd comment a little bit about some oscar-related topics. One main controvoursey at the Oscars and Golden Globes as far as I can understand as people are always wondering "how can we keep the speeches shorter?" It seems like the people in charge of the Oscar ceremony and everyone involved are making conscious efforts to keep the speeches short, but if they were really determined to keep the speeches short than people might confide in their oscar-nominated friends beforehand, "you know, I know you like me and appreciate what i do for you and you don't have to waste America's time for an extra 3 seconds to let the country know it on national television." But somehow it doesn't work that way. It seems like the winners are somehow obligated to list their influences in front of an audience like it's show-and-tell and it's a mandatory part of Kindergarten class.
Take Hugh Laurie at the Golden Globes, for example. Let me first just say, I loved his speech. I especially like the part about how he said, "I want to thank my crew, because they're truly great. Now, logically we can't all have great crews. Somewhere, there's someone operating with a crew of drunken thieves. But that's not our crew, our crew is great." And that's absolutely true! When every actor praises their crew and costars when asked about them in interviews, it just becomes an exercise in political correctness and none of it really feels sincere.
What was also interesting about Laurie's speech was how he remarked on how he wishes he had a speech on him. Well, from the standpoint of an audience member, I'm perfectly happy you don't have a speech on you, it means the ceremony is going to go quicker. But nevertheless, he did give a speech because "that was the thing to do." I remember the 2004 Oscars, Charlie Kaufman really was uncomfortable with public speaking and stated he just wanted his speech to be over. Charlie buddy, relax! You just won an oscar, your life and career will be drastically improved. This should be a time of celebration for you, just do what you want. If the speech is that much of a hastle, Charlie, just say thanks, and get off the stage.
But it seems like people have to earn their oscar with a speech, like it's a silent agreement. Well, if that's the case who's the agreement between, anyway? Is the agreement between the presenter and the people running the ceremony and, if so, why? Do the people running the ceremony demand that the stars get on stage and speak a little for the entertainment benefit of the audience? Because, if so, the speeches don't really seem aimed at entertainment, per say. It doesn't personally entertain me to hear a laundry list of names anymore than watching the end credits of a movie entertain me. If these awards ceremonies are really entertainment, have the stars get up and juggle or so. Since we're rewarding there acting, I'd love to see them (especially stars like Kate Winslet, Naiomi Watts, Hugh Laurie, and Christain Bale who are really talented at accents) jump into their character for a couple lines and spit off a couple quotes from their movies. Maybe Julia Roberts could've accepted her award for Erin Brockovitch in character and acted like a total bitch (which would've been a change of pace from her annoyingly phony smiley self), Jamie Foxx could have played a little piano when he won for Ray, George Clooney could have shot someone when he won as an assassin for Syrianna, etc. Someone actually did this in 2004: the best original song winner got on stage sang the song himself (it was performed that night by Antonio Banderas), said thank you and got off. From watching the post-win interviews that year, I'd say it was pretty unanimously the best loved acceptance speech from the folks in the press room.
But I digress. With this precedent set, the fact that remains that it has now become the de facto proper etiquette for the nominees to read off a laundry list of names, so it would just be flat-out rude to not give a long list of names of everyone associated with you or your production, boring as it may be. And with Hollywood having a reputation of being composed of shallow self-serving people, it's hard to blame people for wanting to show grattitude. It's also really hard to blame someone for speaking their heart out. Some people (at least one or two on a messageboard I frequent) complained about Jamie Foxx's lack of originality (he already gave it at the Golden Globes) or oversentimentality when he gave that speech thanking his grandmother and crying, but personally I just don't feel that that's up for judgement. I think it's their moment and an oscar winner saying whatever he truly feels and thanking his grandmother, is not something we have a right to criticize. But, as I've said all along, I just wish that the majority of them didn't have to be so boring.
One of the only times in recent years I've seen anyone breaking this contract of mass-thanking was Stephen Sodebergh upon his win for Traffic. He said "I have some people that I want to thank but I'll thank them in private. Instead, I want to thank anyone who spends part of their day creating. I don’t care if it’s a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music. Anybody who spends part of their day sharing their experience with us. I think the world would be unlivable without art.”
What a beautiful speech! It makes me almost want to forgive him for Ocean's 12. It also makes me want to write and blog even more for my possibly non-existent audience, because he inspires me to make art just for art's sake.
My only question is how many people got pissed off at him for their 2 seconds of fame being taken away by not hearing their name heard? Maybe, they didn't get pissed off. Maybe they didn't care, and if that's the case, why do many people feel obliged to name so many names in every other oscar speech in the last ten years?
Take Hugh Laurie at the Golden Globes, for example. Let me first just say, I loved his speech. I especially like the part about how he said, "I want to thank my crew, because they're truly great. Now, logically we can't all have great crews. Somewhere, there's someone operating with a crew of drunken thieves. But that's not our crew, our crew is great." And that's absolutely true! When every actor praises their crew and costars when asked about them in interviews, it just becomes an exercise in political correctness and none of it really feels sincere.
What was also interesting about Laurie's speech was how he remarked on how he wishes he had a speech on him. Well, from the standpoint of an audience member, I'm perfectly happy you don't have a speech on you, it means the ceremony is going to go quicker. But nevertheless, he did give a speech because "that was the thing to do." I remember the 2004 Oscars, Charlie Kaufman really was uncomfortable with public speaking and stated he just wanted his speech to be over. Charlie buddy, relax! You just won an oscar, your life and career will be drastically improved. This should be a time of celebration for you, just do what you want. If the speech is that much of a hastle, Charlie, just say thanks, and get off the stage.
But it seems like people have to earn their oscar with a speech, like it's a silent agreement. Well, if that's the case who's the agreement between, anyway? Is the agreement between the presenter and the people running the ceremony and, if so, why? Do the people running the ceremony demand that the stars get on stage and speak a little for the entertainment benefit of the audience? Because, if so, the speeches don't really seem aimed at entertainment, per say. It doesn't personally entertain me to hear a laundry list of names anymore than watching the end credits of a movie entertain me. If these awards ceremonies are really entertainment, have the stars get up and juggle or so. Since we're rewarding there acting, I'd love to see them (especially stars like Kate Winslet, Naiomi Watts, Hugh Laurie, and Christain Bale who are really talented at accents) jump into their character for a couple lines and spit off a couple quotes from their movies. Maybe Julia Roberts could've accepted her award for Erin Brockovitch in character and acted like a total bitch (which would've been a change of pace from her annoyingly phony smiley self), Jamie Foxx could have played a little piano when he won for Ray, George Clooney could have shot someone when he won as an assassin for Syrianna, etc. Someone actually did this in 2004: the best original song winner got on stage sang the song himself (it was performed that night by Antonio Banderas), said thank you and got off. From watching the post-win interviews that year, I'd say it was pretty unanimously the best loved acceptance speech from the folks in the press room.
But I digress. With this precedent set, the fact that remains that it has now become the de facto proper etiquette for the nominees to read off a laundry list of names, so it would just be flat-out rude to not give a long list of names of everyone associated with you or your production, boring as it may be. And with Hollywood having a reputation of being composed of shallow self-serving people, it's hard to blame people for wanting to show grattitude. It's also really hard to blame someone for speaking their heart out. Some people (at least one or two on a messageboard I frequent) complained about Jamie Foxx's lack of originality (he already gave it at the Golden Globes) or oversentimentality when he gave that speech thanking his grandmother and crying, but personally I just don't feel that that's up for judgement. I think it's their moment and an oscar winner saying whatever he truly feels and thanking his grandmother, is not something we have a right to criticize. But, as I've said all along, I just wish that the majority of them didn't have to be so boring.
One of the only times in recent years I've seen anyone breaking this contract of mass-thanking was Stephen Sodebergh upon his win for Traffic. He said "I have some people that I want to thank but I'll thank them in private. Instead, I want to thank anyone who spends part of their day creating. I don’t care if it’s a book, a film, a painting, a dance, a piece of theater, a piece of music. Anybody who spends part of their day sharing their experience with us. I think the world would be unlivable without art.”
What a beautiful speech! It makes me almost want to forgive him for Ocean's 12. It also makes me want to write and blog even more for my possibly non-existent audience, because he inspires me to make art just for art's sake.
My only question is how many people got pissed off at him for their 2 seconds of fame being taken away by not hearing their name heard? Maybe, they didn't get pissed off. Maybe they didn't care, and if that's the case, why do many people feel obliged to name so many names in every other oscar speech in the last ten years?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)