A lot has happened since my last post. Namely the Oscar nominations were announced, shamefully snubbing Ava DuVernay, David Oyelowo, Jake Gylenhaal and one could argue that Jennifer Aniston should be up there. It all looked settled that day, January 15th. But the guilds sure did throw a curveball. PGA came on the 24th announcing their winner... BOOM! Birdman? Wow, I thought, that's fantastic for the race, right? Or is it? And one day later the actors spoke out naming... Birdman their top prize winner. But the most interesting event of that evening was yet another shameful decision. Eddie Redmayne taking Best Actor over Michael Keaton. They were all very good, but, good God, Keaton deserved it! What we got out of that, however, is an actual race. Is Boyhood still the frontrunner? Is it Birdman? Or could something else squeak through like The Imitation Game? Or The Grand Budapest Hotel?
So what does Redmayne winning mean to us? Well let's go back to 2003 when Johnny Depp won the award for Pirates of the Caribbean. And then the Academy made another silly decision by awarding Sean Penn for Mystic River. Thinking that they should probably follow the SAGs from now on to avoid any future mistakes they chose the same actor for the next 10 years. What they didn't count for is that sometimes SAG would get it wrong. McConaughey? Good, but not the best. And now Redmayne.
I tend to be a strong believer in statistics, but only when I think they are useful and make a precedence. Like the unison in which SAG and the Academy choose their leading men. It's been 10 years in a row for crying out loud! Who knows when it will stop? Probably when SAG chooses some clearly un-Oscar type role. Or even better a role that is not nominated at Oscars, or is in another category (supporting). Or could it only be an even 10 years for them? Now the Oscar will go to Keaton and we'll have 10 years of not matching? Let's wait for the BAFTAs, but if there is a statistic I believe in (especially after last year), and do so very carefully, I'll give the edge to Redmayne for the time being. He was the favorite for the BAFTA even before the SAG awards. He will win it, giving him another precursor. He won the Globe, SAG. Keaton won the Globe and BFCA (x2) for now. However if he was to win at BAFTA, then he is the frontrunner, having beaten Redmayne in the latter's territory. So I am not sure where this puts us. In deep shit probably. And I love it, it's interesting, only I hope it turns out to be Keaton in the end.
The season is in its full speed, the guilds roll out, but do they matter that much? What does matter when the final Oscar ballots are mailed out? We shall predict the winner if we try to think like voters.
I prefer Birdman to Boyhood as a film, and would certainly cast my ballot in their favor, however multiple factors come to mind, even if you don't want them to. "LET THE BEST ONE WIN!" we keep telling ourselves. But we do know that that's a lie. Involontarily we choose the best one using merit as only one of the factors. For example, I'll vote for Birdman because it's the best. I'll give it a second thought because I'd love to see Boyhood win, the little film that could. The Grand Budapest Hotel because it would make my eyes pop out and it is such a great and watchable film. Selma because it got shut out and Whiplash because I loved it, and its small. Or say you don't like Boyhood OR Birdman. You like Whiplash the most. But you know it won't win, so you don't "waste" your vote on it and choose one of the films that have a chance, the one you dislike less.
And remember they are WHITE, av. 62 years old and they are conservative. Oh, just look at Clint Eastwood. Did he vote for Ava DuVernay? Did some writer, that hasn't got a screenwriter's credit in 25 years and is way past the point in life when he should retire from active Academy membership, vote for Gillian Flynn?
The Academy is a brutal and disfigured creature that runs around the streets and preaches of being a testament to democracy. So let's remind ourselves what the "D" word means. If a candidate has more votes than his opposition, even a SINGLE VOTE, then he is proclaimed the best. The winner. If Eddie Redmayne has one single goddamn vote more than Michael Keaton, we will talk about his Hawking portrayal as the year's best for many years to come. Not knowing that Michael Keaton was one (out of 6000) votes away to be co-best. Isn't democracy a bitch?
So using that political knowledge let's name the Academy for what it is. If the majority of members are men, then the Academy is masculine, if they're white, the whole Academy is white and if averagely the age is 62, well then the Academy is considered to be a 62 year old white man. Look for diversity of races and sexes there. Yeah, the nominees say it for themselves. They're all white, and women are only in their exclusive categories. And a handful of female producers. The choice of the Academy will we corresponding to what the grout in fact is. It will be a choice that is worthy of a 62 year old white guy.
The only question is, who does the white man choose? The obvious contender that comes to mind is the most Oscary choice, The Imitation Game. Well it's about a gay, that can't possibly strike a good note with some of those chaps over at the Academy. So let's look at what the others say is best. Boyhood and Birdman. And a little bit of Budapest. Every one of them is about men. Is it safe to say that the industry will choose only from the pool of films about men?
I think that the problem with Birdman winning is that for many it will be difficult not to vote for Boyhood out of respect for the fact that is was filmed throughout 12 years. That is a strong factor, and is Boyhood's strongest weapon in a fight where the jurors are old white men. Birdman however is an insider of the industry. The film is about relevancy and the industry loves feeling relevant, so when they make a good movie about them - well, they eat it up. PGA did. And that was huge for Birdman's cause. But is it enough? They still need that crucial BAFTA to solidify themselves as frontrunners. Until then, Boyhood has the smallest of edges.
And finally, now that we know we have a race, can we say that that's good? It's interesting, yes, but it can be harmful, oh yes. It comes down to four options.
Number one: The race is fair and the best win it all, all the way up to the Oscars.
Number two: The race is not fair, and still the same people win it all.
Number three: The race is interesting, and the right people win.
Number four: The race is interesting, and the wrong people win.
We have to possibilities of a fair race, which is what we want to have, right? One is boring, no surprises, and the other one is an interesting one, which is what we hope to be facing. The ugly truth is however, that it is extremely rare to have an interesting and fair race. In an interesting race, other people win all the time, but in a fair race, there is one that is the best and he should be winning. Translating to my choices, I think it's good for the RACE itself that somebody else won the Best Actor award but on the other hand it's bad because it shrinks the chances of the rightful winner. So if the price of an interesting race is that the best are to lose, than no thank you.
Then you fall into a paradoxic circle, because when races are boring, there really isn't much to cover. So bloggers will shut up, and who's gonna bitch about the academy then? The bloggers feed on controversy, surprises and shockers. So my existence as a blogger is possible thanks to the source of my very misery. The source being, that rightful winners, sometimes lose. And we can work on a race then. And the pundits and bloggers have a race of their own. Who predicts the best? Because if there are surprises, some guess some not, giving an opportunity for the best and luckiest to win. And we celebrate our victories while crying over the defeats of the best. Not always of course, because we can predict against the best. It's all bitchy medium, the internet is, but we love it for the same exact reason we hate it. As well as the industry and the "Old white man".
Summing it all up: The industry to be fair, must look broader beyond what pleases them and is appropriate for them. The Academy must look up from the old white male nose to see all that the diverse talent has to offer. And THAT will surely make it so much more interesting. And we the bloggers are occupied. And happy that everyone is recognized fairly. It's a dream of mine.
P.S. Forgot about one important thing. If Birdman wins D.G.A., meaning Innaritu does, then BP is theirs. That comes February 7th, brace yourselves.
P.P.S. I am disappointed (not surprised however) that the Academy (aka white old man) chose American Sniper as their BP nominee instead of other worthy choices like GONE GIRL (for chrissake) or Into the Woods. And of course Foxcatcher. And even though people seem to be okay with it, I am deeply let down by the fact that Bradley Cooper for the second consecutive year is nominated not having deserved to be.
Now to advance from all that profound bitching, let's see how the race look in accordance to the above:
BEST PICTURE
1. Boyhood (Richard Linklater)
2. Birdman (Alejandro G. Innaritu)
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson)
4. The Imitation Game (Morten Tyldum)
5. American Sniper (Clint Eastwood)
6. Selma (Ava DuVernay)
7. Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)
8. The Theory of Everything (James Marsh)
BEST DIRECTOR
1. Richard Linklater (Boyhood)
2. Alejandro G. Innaritu (Birdman)
3. Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
4. Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)
5. Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)
BEST ACTOR
1. Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)
2. Michael Keaton (Birdman)
3. Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
4. Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)
5. Bradley Cooper (American Sniper) (Geeez!)
BEST ACTRESS
1. Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
2. Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
3. Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night)
4. Reese Witherspoon (Wild)
5. Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
1. J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)
2. Edward Norton (Birdman)
3. Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)
4. Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)
5. Robert Duvall (The Judge)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
1. Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
2. Emma Stone (Birdman)
3. Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)
4. Keira Knightley (The Imitation Game)
5. Laura Dern (Wild)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
1. Birdman
2. Boyhood
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Foxcatcher
5. Nightcrawler
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
1. The Imitation Game
2. Whiplash
3. American Sniper
4. The Theory of Everything
5. Inherent Vice
That's all for now, see you after the DGAs which I assume will go to Innaritu. But they might throw us back to reality by choosing Linklater. Watch out for Morten Tyldum.
Burt Mizaki
No comments:
Post a Comment