Hooray for the Oscars! It’s that time of year where truly landmark film goes completely unrecognized and the good ones that manage to squeeze onto the nominee list are typically overshadowed by their commercially successful counterparts. This year’s Oscars were no exception.
We all know (and if you don’t, get a clue) There Will Be Blood was the most unique film up for Best Picture this year. It is the story of a turn of the 20th century oil man who forges the path to America’s corrupt, big business morale, a film that sets out to depict the politics of a watershed in our country’s history. The story of Daniel Plainview (Daniel-Day Lewis) has been represented far less in film history than the undemanding cat and mouse crime drama of the other heavyweight Oscar contender, No Country for Old Men. Yet No Country wins Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Director and Best Picture. Oh, the injustice.
No Country for Old Men is to There Will Be Blood as Crash is to Brokeback Mountain, an undeserving Best Picture winner that pails in comparison to its fellow nominee of more groundbreaking content. The Academy has a long history of choosing the diverting, more easily digested film for the public. Like the producer moguls the Academy serves, they too have a reputation of success entirely reliant upon the average moviegoer. The “WINNER OF 5 ACADEMY AWARDS INCLUDING BEST PICTURE!” banner across the top of a DVD box means a lot to a Blockbuster customer. They need to be told what to watch, and the American movie industry will be damned if they’re recommending gay cowboy movies and bleak character studies about undesirable people who shape our country.
Although the Academy usually awards the deserving Best Picture nominees in other categories, it continues to reserve the “highest honor” for the safer film. The Best Picture accolade has gradually become the most farcical of the Academy Awards, a sticker given to an uncontroversial film the American public can easily enjoy and will take for well-deserving artistic cinema. No Country for Old Men will start to make everyone’s “Best Films of All Time” lists while There Will Be Blood will fade from the social conscience, only to be remembered 50 years from now for the masterpiece it is, in what I hope will someday be a sublime retrospective of Paul Thomas Anderson’s many decades of exceptional work.
In my opinion, the most deserving Oscar went to Robert Elswit for his cinematography in Blood. He frames an atypical American landscape that is ugly, inhospitable and roaring with the forlornness of our current state of affairs at the mercy of a black ocean under our feet. This is the stuff nightmares are made of.
5 comments:
No Country is this year's Crash? Are you kidding me?!! Personally, there's much more to be mined out of No Country than Blood, although both ARE masterpieces for the ages. To be continued...
yeesh. methinks yon anderson fan doth complain too much.
A. No Country is more than a mere cat and mouse game. That's Blood Simple, if you want to be dismissive. If that's all it is, 20 minutes need to be edited out of the end. Bardem is no mere killer; he's Fate, he's Death, he's God, however you wanna frame it. Tommy Lee's monologue that closes the film is about his life, not about the case that precedes the monologue, for a reason.
B. There Will Be Blood is not a masterpiece. It's also only incidentally about capitalism, greed, etc. It's just another PT Anderson story about fractured families. Solid performance from DD-Lewis, and little else to get excited about for me.
Discuss...
No Country is not the equivalent of Crash when each film stands alone. The former is far superior, that goes without saying. But in terms of Best Picture politics, they are equal. I apologize if that was unclear.
No Country is Blood Simple with a bunch of fake, existentialist rhetoric clouding it. To me, it's an elementary story of good vs. evil (YAWN) that was more fun and engaging when the Coens did it the first time. The only thing I found somewhat unique and noteworthy is Fate/Death/God/Bardem walks. But then again, so does Daniel Plainview.
I'm growing very weary of the Coens. Not because they continue to explore the same themes over and over again (all great filmmakers do, as they should) , but because they've now made a previous film again. Where else can they go from here? Not far.
I'm tired of films hinging on money bags, fateful coin tosses, and omniscient murderers. These devices are old, no matter who dresses them up. And yes, I complain way too much and it feels so good.
Absolutely agreed with point A. And I somewhat disagree with point B. For me, "...Blood" is an epic character study. I truly don't think Anderson is trying to draw allegorical connections to the United States or it's current situation in Iraq. I think he's too good of a filmmaker to stoop to the level of film as a political statement. "Blood" is a masterpiece in it's combination of acting, set design, photography, direction, music, and so on and so on -- The same as "No Country..." We were fortunate to get two very different, but outstanding movies this year that will no doubt be mentioned along with the all-time greats for decades to come. Allow me to use an SAT-type analogy: There Will Be Blood is to No Country for Old Men, as The Godfather is to 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Post a Comment