Year after year my perception of the Academy Awards becomes more and more like my perception of The X-Files or Lost--a convoluted mess of decisions that no one agrees with or understands (and everyone wishes all three would have called it quits years earlier). In fact, the only difference between the three is that the results of the Academy Awards leave me feeling more confused and upset.
This year I believe I speak for everyone when I cry, “Where the heck is The Dark Knight!?”
It isn’t necessary to divulge the reasons for which The Dark Knight is deserving of Best Picture (or at least the nomination!), but its absence is a perfect example of the prejudiced traditions of those who make up the Academy. Specifically, I’m talking about the fact that The Dark Knight is tied for third in number of nominations this year, yet finds itself absent from the nominations for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Picture. The three other films are nominated for all four of these awards.
I can’t be the only one who finds it odd that The Dark Knight accidentally excelled in all of its nominated fields. I say accidentally because obviously the Academy didn’t think Christopher Nolan had anything to do with the excellence, otherwise how could they have left him off the list of Best Directors? What were the other directors nominated for?
It was in 1999 that my eyes were first opened to this irrational behavior from the Academy. American Beauty had won Best Picture and it followed with four other wins. The Matrix, lacking nominations in any of the four ‘prestigious’ categories, rounded up four other awards to make it second only to American Beauty that year. Then last year, No Country For Old Men won Best Picture and three other awards, while The Bourne Ultimatum rounded up all three awards it was nominated for (again none of which were ‘prestigious’). Is it possible that most films are either well acted and written, or well achieved technically--never the twain shall meet? What exactly is an awards ceremony worth that awards films that are only half-baked?
Other recent anomalies included Spielberg’s directing win for Saving Private Ryan while Best Picture went to Shakespeare in Love. Russell Crowe won for Gladiator after being snuffed the year before for his far superior performance in The Insider. Martin Scorcese recently won for The Departed which most will agree was among the least deserving of his pictures (he should have won in 2004 for The Aviator, but the award went to Clint Eastwood because the Academy just seems to love the guy).
How exactly does a film get nominated for Best Picture without its director (this happens all too often)? And how does a film achieve such technical nominations without its director? Or without the rest of the film? What’s being rewarded?
Let’s just say it--the Academy didn’t give the nominations to The Dark Knight because it was a comic book movie. It didn’t give the nominations to The Matrix because it was a sci-fi/action film. It didn’t give the award to Scorcese for The Aviator because Clint Eastwood was there (to apologize it gave him the award the next time around even with Clint there). “If you’re a sci-fi/comic book movie, it’s okay for you to receive the technical nominations,” sounds a little like “If you’re black it’s okay for you to ride in the back of the bus.” In a year when others grew out of ridiculous traditions and rose to the stature necessary to elect a black president, I’d hoped we’d see the close minded traditions of the Academy set aside, but it wasn’t to be. Apparently the only films worth mentioning each year are the ones that don’t carry our imaginations too far from reality--and, of course, they’ve been handled by Clint Eastwood.
I sure wish I could bring myself to watch the Academy Awards, but I’ve got some episodes of Lost to catch up with, and I think I’ll be able to follow them better.
No comments:
Post a Comment