In 2014, the film Pride was released. It's a fantastic film, one of my favourite films of that year. The only film I enjoyed more was The Lego Movie. It picked up a few awards, but when it came to the big ones, it received few nominations and came nowhere come Oscars time, yet it is a far, far better film than many of those that did get nominated.
Now, film is subjective. Everyone has their favourite films, ones they love and think are better than others. I accept that. It's why I'm not a fan of awards in general. They more often than not get it spectacularly wrong. In 2016 Leonardo DiCaprio won the Oscar for best actor for The Revenant. It's not an acting performance, it's an endurance test, what Leo went through for an Oscar. He should have won for his performance in The Wolf Of Wall Street. Al Pacino won his only acting award for Scent Of A Woman. Think about that. He was nominated for The Godfather Parts I & II, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon and for ...And Justice For All and he won for Scent Of A Woman.
(Scorsese winning his Oscar)
It's not only in acting. Martin Scorsese won his only directing award for The Departed. It was deserved, but he should have won long before this.
The point is that there seems to be a 'thing' at the Oscars, where the deserving winner doesn't win, but rather the one who's time has come. But there is another issue at play here; how exactly do you compare a performance in a comedy against that in a drama against that in a thriller? Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams were both nominated for awards at last years Oscars for the outstanding Spotlight, but really none of the performances stood out, not because they were poor, but because the whole cast were first rate in what is essentially an ensemble piece. Had there been an award for best ensemble, then Spotlight would have won that easily.
Last year's Oscars were shrouded in controversy over the lack of award nominations, especially in the acting categories for people of colour. The film Selma was overlooked it was claimed. In truth, despite a terrific lead performance from David Oyelowo I thought the film a bit overrated, but I am aware that opinion seems to be a minority one.
It's not just in the acting categories too. I mentioned The Lego Movie, a shoe-in for at least a nomination. Or so everyone apart from the academy thought. Instead it got a nomination for best song.
It has been suggested the academy is too old and too white in some quarters, especially in the wake of last years event. So, they invited younger and more diverse members to join.
So how does that play into this years event?
Now, I haven't seen all the films that have been nominated. I want to make that clear right now. But based on what I know about some of the films, I'm stunned by some of the decisions. Amy Adams not being nominated for either Arrival or Nocturnal Animals? Really? Dev Patel, who appears to be the lead in Lion only nominated in a supporting role?
And where the hell are nominations for A Monster Calls? It's an absolute masterpiece and in my humble opinion a much better film than the wonderful, La La Land.
In 2004, The Return Of The King swept the board at the Oscars. Among the films it beat that year were Mystic River and Master And Commander: Master Of The World. While Return Of The King is, personally, the best film in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, I actually think the awards that year were celebrating the trilogy, not one film. I actually think Master And Commander was actually the best film of that year.
The Oscars always cause controversy. Remember Shakespeare In Love beating Saving Private Ryan? Driving Miss Daisy beating Dead Poet's Society and Field Of Dreams? In the future they probably will cause even more.
It might cause excitement for some. It might make great headlines. For me though, the Oscars mean nothing, after all I've never seen Shakespeare In Love Or Driving Miss Daisy.
And no matter how many Oscars or awards a film does get will ever change that.
No comments:
Post a Comment