The Oscar-Induced Resurgence

So it seems I've been gone from the blogosphere for a while now, mostly because I couldn't think of anything to complain about for seven paragraphs (at least anything that wasn't controversial in nature). Well, recently I've decided to watch every movie that's ever been nominated for Best Picture. I started with 2009, and I'm working my way backward. So this will be the longest of all the Oscar posts, maybe the longest of all of my posts, because there were 10 nominees! 10! And I watched all ten of them. The hard part will be condensing it to a paragraph on each because as my roommate and my parents can tell you: I could go on for hours.

I can think of no other way to list off the films than alphabetically, and then the winner. Which of course means that first up on the list is none other than Avatar. Well it's appropriate since I have the strongest opinions toward that movie. Let me begin by saying that I highly enjoyed it. It's visually incredible, the music is great, and it's broken new ground for films. But it's really more of a really long amusement park ride than a movie. The story has been done and redone many times over, it's a bit too heavy-handed with its message ("we killed our Earth-mother long ago! Long ago I tell you! Why? Why? The horror!"), and plus there's the real-life factor of: James Cameron is a jerk. He's a good director, but he's nowhere near as good as he thinks he is (no one is as good as he thinks he is). And plus, part of the reason it made so much money is the fact that each ticket costs a few dollars more for the 3D glasses. If you feel like doing some math to see how much it would've made without it (and I don't) then it made less than The Dark Knight. So James Cameron can bow to Chris Nolan, a real director. Which is good, because the fact that the highest-grossing movie of all time has an element called "unobtanium" in it is nauseating. Although as my good friend pointed out: it sounds better than "hard-to-getium" or "plot devicium". Bottom line: fun movie, but if it had won I would've been violently ill.

One of the stranger additions to the list is The Blind Side. I enjoyed the film in a typical uplifting sports movie way, but it wasn't particularly great. And Sandra Bullock did a good job, but Best Actress? Really? I think they gave it to her because she's popular and most of the other nominees had won already. So I can't exactly argue, I just thought it was a bit of an odd choice. There are certainly moments to cheer through the movie, and I will say that there are some more intense moments than you'd think at a few places (beating up some gang members, Sandra threatening to pull a gun on gang members, etc.) which made it a bit more interesting than most sports films. Still, I feel like a lot of other movies could've taken its place if they were looking for a popular one to nominate (Star Trek anyone?).

Something I was glad to see on the list was District 9. Its addition actually led me to think that maybe 10 nominees is a good idea. It's a way of saying: this has no shot at winning but we'd like to tip our hat anyway. The film actually deals with a lot of similar issues to those in Avatar, except it deals with them in a much more effective and low-key manner. Plus, some of the special effects look just as good (there's just not as much of it, obviously) and it was shot for 30 million or something. The movie very impressively depicts an allegory for apartheid (without shoving it in your face too much after the first 10 minutes of setup) while developing a great character and somehow fitting in some sci-fi action which is just plain awesome. The director, Neill Blomkamp, is certainly one to keep an eye on. The movie is too violent and nerdy to get anything from the Academy, but I'm glad it received the nomination because it was one of my favorites from last year.

Coming off of that positive note, we move on to easily my least favorite of the nominees: An Education. Now, let me point out that I was expecting to like it. It was written by Nick Hornby, who I'm a fan of, and the first half an hour or so is quirky, witty, and enjoyable. But since the whole movie is basically like Lolita (except that it doesn't know it's creepy) and it hinges on how much you feel for the lead character, I ended up intensely disliking it. Now, I can feel sympathy for anybody in a movie if it's done correctly. Darth Vader, scourge of the galaxy and killer of younglings, I feel for that guy. Davy Jones, collector of the dead and ruler of the kraken, I feel for that guy. But Carey Mulligan's character in this movie (major spoilers ahead, but I'm sparing you from watching the film): a girl stupid enough to shack up with a con man/thief who is twice her age, who then tosses her education out the window to marry him only to discover (gasp!) he's already married and she's made a complete fool of herself. I feel no sympathy for the girl and as such the movie cannot be enjoyed (not by me anyway). Because Darth did what he did for love, and Davy had his heart broken so he became cruel to survive in a cruel world, but this chick was nuts.

Oddly shoved in the middle of my rundown is my favorite movie from the whole bunch: Inglourious Basterds. As many know, I'm an avid Tarantino fan. And when I saw this I said, "this is easily his second best work after Pulp Fiction." When I watched it again I said, "this is easily his best work ever" (a sentiment echoed by Brad Pitt in the final line of dialogue). The film not only showcases Tarantino's outstanding dialogue, shot composition, and creativity, it also turns the genre on its head. Christoph Waltz's character, Hans Landa, is the sleazy Nazi who is so smart and eloquent that you almost like him more than the good guys (at least he won his award, that was easily one of the best villain performances of all time). And Brad Pitt's team is so brutal and ruthless, that they're the real Nazis of the piece. Hitler is portrayed as a small, defeated man who has gotten in over his head. Not to say that any of this points to actual historical fact, it's just interesting to see it portrayed so differently. And you still revel in the scene at the end when Hitler is riddled with bullets. People complained of the historical inaccuracy of the piece, to which I say: any historical film that has characters in it that didn't exist in real life, isn't historically accurate. So who cares? It's an outstanding piece of work, and I hope that someday Tarantino gets what he deserves instead of becoming the next Hitchcock (who strangely never won anything).

Everybody hanging in there? Well, in case you're not, I'm going to separate this into two parts so it'll be easily accessible for those of you with actual lives to pick it up again later. Or it'll make you feel better about yourself since you'd be avoiding a second post instead of only reading half of one posting, which is much more rude. You're welcome.