In Defense of The Oscars.

Well the Oscars are over and the post-show criticisms are in. Like the Oscars themselves, there is nothing new under the sun criticism-wise, at least not in the media coverage. With every passing year though I notice a lot more apathy and sarcastic criticism of the ceremony within my circle of movie-nerd friends. With the avalanche of Facebook status updates filled with baiting-opinions presented as facts overloading my news-feed this past week I felt unbelievably lame for looking forward to and actually enjoying the Oscars. So what is it that makes our opinions so different? We are all around the same age, share similar tastes, and above all, have an appreciation for the art of film-making.


Some of the common complaints I hear are that the ceremony is too predicable, too long, and too boring. It's just one big self-congratulatory celebrity love-fest and that it doesn't really matter because it doesn't really represent the "best" movies of the year. It's all hype, and above all, the aspect of the ceremony that really gets their goat is that the Academy never picks the right films (i.e. the ones they want to win). Fair enough.


Here are my thoughts on the subject. In a lot of ways I think the Oscars are like the Superbowl for film-nerds, a whole years worth of build up, speculation, and over-analyzing resulting in a winner that is usually unsatisfactory for most of the fans. The winner is usually predictable, the coverage is extra long, and depending on the competitiveness of the teams, the game can be boring.


Unlike the Oscars though, people love the Superbowl. No one is made to feel lame for watching it and those few souls who actually do hate it are probably the kind of miserable assholes who complain about everything (trolls). Despite usually being a huge disappointment, every year, people still look forward to the Superbowl, hell, they even look forward to the freaking commercials. To hear certain detractors spin it, you would the Oscars were being mercilessly labored through by the audience, with each additional commercial adding an extra excruciating 30-45 seconds of wasted time to the viewer's life. Despite the fact that the ceremony is rich with tradition, only comes once a year, and is a celebration of the medium that they love most, these folks seem to be hellbent on undermining the importance of it.


Ah yes, the importance of it. Are the Oscars as important as the Academy wants you to believe? No, but they are not meaningless either. I'm not sure if you've observed a casual film-goer recently, but I have had plenty of exposure to them working at the theater. Here are a couple of my insights into the mind of the average (age 15-25) film-goer: A) If it wasn't made in the last 5 years, it might as well never have existed, and B) a lot of people (especially young people) never consider exactly how movies are made or where they come from. A lot of the kids that worked at the theater with me seemed to think that movies were just new stories being churned out to them every week, no thought given to the idea that people make movies and that's there's an artistry and craftsmanship to it.


This is where The Oscars come in to play, maybe not for young people who don't even watch basic television anymore, much less award shows, but for let's say, society in general. For many reasons the modern movie industry seems to think of themselves as a business first and an art-form second (actually it's probably more like forth or fifth). As a society we're encouraged to think of movies as merely entertainment and not, you know, the greatest form of idea conveyance and documentation in our history. I know that last statement is a lightning rod for a lot of people who champion the written word, but I mean no offense. I'm not saying movies as a medium are necessarily better than literature, but rather, that it has the potential to be. It's a fascinating, magical storytelling medium and an incredible form of historical documentation that is treated like frivolous amusement by most people, but...not at the Oscars.


The "Road to the Oscars" is possibly the only time of year that mainstream media coverage acknowledges that there is more to the movies than box office results, that there is something to be said for art and, you know, films being good. For one night out of the year, there is a ceremony that takes movies seriously, that not only accounts for the technical aspects of the craftsmanship, but also reminds us that movies are part of our history, culture, and that yes, they are important. Even though, to me, it seems like a small gesture in the grand scheme of things, to many people it's perceived as this gaudy, lavish, and undeserved celebrity circle-jerk. For many, the idea that people in the film industry get any recognition, much less awards for their work when they've already received so much money as compensation is uncalled-for.


Yes, actors make a lot of money (although a lot of technical award winners involved in the process make much less and do deserve recognition), but comparatively to what some of these movies make, it's a fraction of the profits and in a lot of cases they are very much responsible for the revenue of the film (Johnny Depp in "The Pirates of the Caribbean" films springs to mind). Plus, I'm not sure if you've notice, but there's not much money at the box office in "good" movies these days. The reason I bring that up is because actors (and studios for that matter) need motivation to make films that might not necessarily make a lot of money, and the potential of an Academy Award is not a bad goal.


So what else? Oh yeah, the Oscars doesn't really represent the "best" movies of the year. Well, no shit, it's hard to please everyone when you're picking only one thing. That being said, look at the musical equivalent, The Grammys. The Grammy nominees over the last 20+ years have represented some of the most generic, unimaginative, and unauthentic examples of music imaginable; the most radio-friendly bullshit you can find.. If it sold, it's gold as far as the Grammys are concerned. Juxtapose that with the Oscars who since the mid-1990's have seemingly made a conscience effort to include lesser known films. They regularly get shit for nominating films that "no one's ever heard of" from one segment of the population and get even more shit for not nominating "Drive" from another segment. So yeah, "The Artist" might not have been the "best" film of 2011, but if the Oscars were like the Grammys, they would of picked "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" instead, so you're welcome.


In conclusion, the Oscars are far from perfect, in fact they're kind of a mess these days. So many people complain about them that the producers have repeated tweaked the formula, experimented with new "modern" ideas, and shifted back and forth between tradition and what they think people want. It never seems to please anyone. So why defend the Oscars?? Maybe because no one else ever does? Nah, I just love movies and I love the idea of the Oscars. I want it to be better and I'm going to keep watching hoping for those little pieces of spontaneous moments and emotion that make it work. I sometimes think about the 1996 Awards, a year in-which much was made about "the year of the Indie film," and I think about how little I care about the Best Picture nominees from that year (with the exception of "Fargo") now. The thing I remember from that show was the Cuba Gooding Jr. acceptance speech, which everyone remembers. It was the kind of moment that only the Oscars could produce.

2012 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Animated

So I took in the Live Action Shorts last week and the Animated Shorts this week. I think the animated nominees themselves might be a little weaker, but the overall program (the nominees plus the "Highly Commended" shorts) made for a more enjoyable experience. The weakest link, for me, was "Sunday," although it was closely followed by Pixar's entry, "La Luna." The other 3 nominees were all pretty strong, but my favorite was "Wild Life," a lovely, funny, and touching short about an Englishmen who buys a ranch in the American West in the early 1900s. The story is told through his correspondence with his family and from unfavorable testimonials from the locals. I thought it was very good.

"Morning Stroll" was fairly cute, and "The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore" started off with way too much sentiment and whimsy for me, but halfway through managed to find it's footing and engaged me. It will probably win.

R.I.P. Lina Romay.

One of my favorite memories of the cinema came in 2009 at Fantastic Fest. I went to a screening of Jess Franco's 1973 film "Bare Breasted Countess" (Female Vampire) starring Lina Romay as a sensual murderous vampire. Franco is in it as well as a doctor trying to stop her. Both Franco and Romay (long-time husband and wife) were in attendance. It was filmed when she was only 20 years old, and she admitted before the screening that she did not feel comfortable watching her films. She also noted, along with Franco, that it was this film that was the catalyst for them falling in love. As the movie began, Miss Romay left the auditorium, but Franco stayed for a bit. When the film approached the end Lina helped Jess back into the theater for the Q & A. While the finale played out on screen I noticed the two of them staring up at the images together. Lina’s vampire was sprawled out naked in a bath of blood, while Franco’s doctor bursts through the door with intentions of killing her. It was the first time in the film that the Doc had seen the Countess, and his urge to kill was quickly snuffed out by her incredible beauty. So there it was, the two of them 40 years on, watching their younger selves falling in love on the screen. It was truly a moving moment and it reminded me of what Lars, the host, stated at the beginning of the series. He read a quote by Franco that appeared in an Austin Chronicle interview the week of the festival: “The cinema is not the way to escape our lives; it is the way to complete our lives.” I think about that quote and that screening often. R.I.P. Lina Romay.

Melancholia Trailer - Simpsons-Style

I've never made a "fan video" of any kind, well, until now...

The Return of Whit Stillman and his "Damsels in Distress"

This past October the Austin Film Festival screened Whit Stillman’s 1990 debut, “Metropolitan,” to a packed house at the Alamo Ritz, with Stillman in attendance. Having never heard of the film, much less seen it, the screening was a revelation for me. I was struck by how nostalgic the portrait of 1970′s New York was; the holiday, orchestra, and piano-based music, the lighting, and costume design perfectly complimenting the tale of a lower-class urbanite briefly infiltrating the world and ranks of a close-knit group of upper-class socialites.

Admittedly the premise on paper didn’t really strike me as something that would interest, much less entertain me, but the script was so intelligent and witty, and the performances so strong that I couldn’t help but be engrossed by it all. To find out after the film that it was made by the same man behind 1998′s equally wonderful, “The Last Days of Disco” (a film that I was actually familiar with), was both amusing and fitting. It’s been nearly 14 years since that film was in theaters and Whit Stillman has finally returned with another “comedy of manners,” Sony Pictures Classics’ recently acquired, “Damsels in Distress.”

Filmed in Bronxville, New York, “Damsels” stars Indie “It-Girl” (or modern day Chloë Sevigny if you prefer) Greta Gerwig as the leader of a trio of girls pro-actively (in their eyes) working to change their college environment plagued by “male barbarism,” naive female freshmen, and suicidal classmates. Based on the trailer it seems like it will retain Stillman’s passion for dry high-minded wit, while adding touches of dark-comedy and whimsy. It kind of looks like “Clueless” by way of “The Rules of Attraction.” The cast also includes Adam Brody, Analeigh Tipton, and Aubrey Plaza. “Damsels” was the closing night film at the 2011 Venice Film Festival and received positive reviews, there is still no American release date yet, though rumors suggest early March.

Deadfall (1993)

Wow...just, wow.

This movie first came to my attention around the time "Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans" was in theaters. I'm a big Nicholas Cage fan, and I recognize that the 2000's have not been as kind to Cage as the first couple decades of his career, but I still think he's put out some good films here and there. What's most important about Cage isn't necessarily the quality of the film, but rather what he brings to it. He's a risk-taker, and yes, he's sometimes waaaaayyyy over-the-top, but he rarely, if ever, phones it in.


Before I get to "Deadfall," I want to attempt to put it into some sort of relate-able context. If you're a reading this, you like movies, and you probably like movies a lot, maybe even enough to have tried making a few yourself. If you're one of those people who've made a low budget film or two, honestly, how were they? Probably not that good, maybe not that bad either, but you're probably not busting down people's door to show them to anybody. If this sounds like you or someone you know then you've probably seen what an inexperienced filmmaker's movie can be like. Some of the calling cards are broad caricatures, cliched scenarios, too much exposition (usually through unnecessary voice-over narration), and lackluster, lifeless performances.

All of these element come into play in Christopher (brother of Nicholas Cage/Nephew of Francis Ford) Coppola's 1993 ne0-Noir. According to his bio, Christopher had been making films (usually starring his brother) since he was kid, he had at least one other feature under his belt prior to "Deadfall."

I think I'll take this opportunity to discuss an aspect of film-making/film-viewing that I've always meant to address in one of my reviews, but have just never found the right time to do so. There is a sub-culture of movie watchers who enjoy movies that are "so bad they're good," and I've known many of them and seen many of their favorite bad movies. "Deadfall" is one those type of films, so I'm going to address my theory as to what makes those movie work and what doesn't. Essentially, it comes down to sincerity. A bad movie is only truly funny when the film-maker sincerely tried to make a good movie, but failed. There is no humor in intending to make a bad movie.


"Deadfall" is a bad movie, but it's very entertaining. The voice-over narration by Micheal Biehn ("The Terminator") is among the worst I've ever heard. The characters are more like thin concepts meant to be cool than actual real people. The performances, for the most part, are wooden, Biehn and Peter Fonda almost seem as if they're doing Coppola a favor and are more or less being forced to act. James Coburn is the only one who brings any levity to the material, the only one really trying to take it seriously.


That being said, there are 3 performances in this movie worth watching it for. The first, and easily the most talked about and fucking insane, is that of Nicholas Cage, as Eddie. It's hard to put into words what the hell Cage is doing in this movie, but I honestly think it has something to do with him tapping into his Id. There's no other way to describe then to say that Cage seems to be in some other movie altogether (well for at least for the first 2/3rds), he's on another planet. I can only imagine that he was trying to bring something original to a holy unoriginal work. Vagueness aside, his performance at time reminded me of the great Timothy Carey.


The last third of the movie has two inexplicable characters, Charlie Sheen's Fat's Gripp (a absurdly suave pool player) and Angus Scrimm's Dr Lyne (some bizarre amalgamation of Dr. Evil, Dr. Claw, and Edward Scissorhands). Coppola's Aunt, Talia Shire, is in one scene as a bartender. Micky from the Monkees is in it for some reason. Oh, and the plot twist at the end is stupid. Like I said, "Deadfall" is a bad movie, but Coppola's sincere effort comes across, and though I laughed quite a bit in the last 90 minutes, I wholeheartedly respect his film.

Here's a song by the band Snot that's pretty much explains the entire plot of the movie.

2012 Oscar Nominated Shorts: Live Action

Well, I took in the Live Action shorts last night; "Pentecost," "Raju," "The Shore," "Time Freak," and "Tuba Atlantic." Of the five I enjoyed "Tuba Atlantic" the most. It's a Norwegian film about a crotchety old man living out his final 6 days with an "Angel of Death," a teenage volunteer who provides the "service" of helping the dying finish out their lives.

I also enjoyed "Pentecost," which mixed the very different worlds of Alter Boys and Soccer Players, it's short and sweet, well executed. "Raju," which is about a couple accidentally adopting a kidnapped child in India, is probably the frontrunner for the Academy Award, it's just seems perfectly suited for the Oscars. "The Shore" was a bit long, but wasn't bad. It seemed more like a shorten feature. "Time Freak" is one that stood out to me as maybe not being worthy of a nomination. It wasn't bad at all, but I just didn't think it was in the same league as the others. Still, it's worth a look it is fairly funny.