No Concessions: This Year’s Loser Oscar Nominees

Bob Cashill February 7, 2011 4

Let’s talk about this year’s Oscar nominations. I know they were last Tuesday, but…what? They were the Tuesday before that? Two Tuesdays ago? What…ah, jeez.

Such is my life these days. Besides little remora-like comments on other folks’ hard work around here I’ve been scarce from the Popdose universe, not because of Oscar, but because of another little guy, Ryan, who came into our lives on Jan. 15, just after I wrapped up my end-of-2010 posts (whew!). He joins his toddling sister, Larissa, and together they’re double trouble. When they’re finally put down for the night (or, in the baby’s case, two hours before the next feeding), I mean to post, and there have been things to post about. Like the passing of the great John Barry. Like the passing of the great Tura Satana, the unforgettable “Varla” of Russ Meyer’s Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, which I first saw at Northwestern and really heightened my higher education. (If only they’d worked together; what a theme Barry could have written for her.) Like The Green Hornet, The Rite, and Sanctum.

(Just threw that in to see if you’re paying attention. There is nothing to say about any Hollywood movie that opens in Jan-Feb. Not these, anyway. Daily reviewing is a grim job in the dead of winter.)

So, yeah, I’ll say it: As a film guy these days, I’m a loser. Oh, sure, I’ve watched some DVDs, and that will translate into prose soon (“any day now” growls the boss, who does not believe in such extravagant paternity leave). I feel bad that instead of posting I tend to nap between onslaughts of parenting.

But not as bad as the people who shed blood, sweat, and tears on Barney’s Version (pictured) and The Way Back–which I’ve designated this year’s Loser Oscar Nominees.

Let me define this for you. They are not bad Oscar nominees. They are not Biutiful, a movie that may very well be good, but that title (awful) and the grossly overinflated rep of its director will keep me from ever seeing it, at least before the Oscars air. They are not the cinematography of The King’s Speech, a symphony of brown and musk, and one of those rolling snowball nominations that a picture accumulates when the nominating bodies are just ticking off boxes as they hit the technical categories. (OK, I don’t know what goes into it, but The Rite probably has better cinematography than The King’s Speech. All In can say is that if Roger Deakins doesn’t win this year, especially if The King’s Speech wins, there will be hell to pay, once I finish changing diapers.)

They are not worrisome Oscar nominees. They are not True Grit pole-vaulting ahead of The King’s Speech and The Social Network to win Best Picture, which would be horribly embarrassing. A remake of an American film winning the top prize? Gross, unseemly. Bad. I have no problem with The Departed, a remake of a HK film, being the champion. But True Grit winning would be like cannibalism, an Oscar nominee feasting on an Oscar winner.

(And, yeah, I know it happened before, when Mutiny on the Bounty won in 1935 and Ben-Hur won in 1959, but no one recalls the prior Bounty and the the original Ben-Hur was a silent movie. We remember John Wayne in True Grit. It would set a bad precedent–someone would surely figure the Academy for fools and remake The Godfather or Silence of the Lambs and then they would win Best Picture again and pretty soon there’d be no original movies whatsoever being made, just retreads of old Oscar winners that win all the new Oscars. Can we risk this as a nation?)

God, I’m sweating after writing that. Where the hell was I…what, another bottle feeding, at 1:17 am…?

Loser Oscar Nominees, or LONs, as I call them. They are not movies that nab one or two nominations, like, say, Rabbit Hole. That got a good one: Best Actress for Nicole Kidman. Sweet. You can put that on the poster, trumpet it on the web: “Academy Award Nominee: Nicole Kidman, Best Actress.” It’s prestigious, great for business. Keeps the movie alive through awards night. Looks great on the DVD and Blu-ray (“Academy Award Nominee: Nicole Kidman, Best Actress.” Loved her. Like hell she’s winning.) Robert Osborne will say it with pride in a few years on Turner Classic Movies during a future edition of “31 Days of Oscar”: “Our next film, Rabbit Hole, earned its star Nicole Kidman an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress…”

No such glory awaits Barney’s Version or The Way Back (pictured). No new posters will be struck or new TV spots created. As it is, both films are down to two theaters apiece and a few shows daily in New York, which means they are unlikely to be coming to a theater near you. Their DVD and Blu-ray cases may say “Academy Award Nominee,” but what for will be in tiny afterthought type. Yes, they have earned their place in the “31 Days of Oscar” rotation–but Robert Osborne will never introduce them. Ever.

Why? Because they received a nomination for Best Makeup.

That’s a positive for the third nominee in the category, The Wolfman. In fact, it’s kind of nice: the great Rick Baker (monster maker) won the first makeup award for 1981′s An American Werewolf in London, and winning this seventh time for The Wolfman would bring his nominations history full circle 30 years later. (Too late for the theatrical and DVD marketing, though; that wolf has howled.) And it’s obviously great news for Adrien Morot (Barney’s Version) and the trio behind The Way Back, Edouard F. Henriques, Gregory Funk, and Yolanda Toussieng. Morot and Funk are first-time nominees, which is gratifying. Take a bow.

But it’s at the very best bittersweet for everyone else involved in these movies, which I happened to see in December, pre-Ryan. After the screenings I read the presskits, and I felt lousy–why didn’t I like these movies more? These aren’t the usual studio product, but movies that their makers toiled over for 10, 12, years, raising money and fighting for. One’s an adaptation of an acclaimed Mordecai Richler novel featuring Paul Giamatti and Dustin Hoffman; the other the new film from Peter Weir, his first since 2003′s superb Master and Commander, about a true-life breakout from a Siberian gulag and the four years it took for the escapees to reach civilization. Both are labors of love.

And neither is very good. Set in a world unto itself, that of Montreal Jews, Barney’s Version sentimentalizes Giamatti’s selfish and unlikable character, and makes him palatable–which kills any interest we might have in his scrabbling through life and love, with three different women and a cantankerous salt-of-the-bagel dad (Hoffman). All I could hear were echoes of Paul Mazursky’s Enemies: A Love Story (1989), a much different film to be sure, and set in an entirely other milieu, but a richer, more exacting, less slovenly movie that doesn’t pull any punches. Though Giamatti gives it his all, aging 30 or so years (quite well), he seems to be warming up for The Ron Jeremy Story, which doesn’t help. (And Morot isn’t quite as engaged with Barney’s last, more-or-less consuming passion, played by Rosamund Pike. Giamatti’s makeup is subtle; the 32-year-old Pike’s, more a matter of middle-aging costumes and hairstyles.)

The Way Back seemed tailor-made for Weir’s talents. But long-aborning projects like this or Gangs of New York can cook too long, and the film, while respectable, is soggy and exhausting. The early prison scenes, introducing us to a motley crew whose members include Jim Sturgess, Colin Farrell, and Ed Harris (as an American who surrendered his U.S. citizenship in hope of a more fulfilling life in the workers’ paradise, not the only one to have done so), are the best, and are capped by a terrifying scene set in a mine that convinced me the screening room was about to collapse around my ears. The escape, however, is a solemn, enobling trudge, that seems to happen in real time, and the characterizations and dialogue are weak. When Saoirse Ronan (an Oscar nominee for Atonement) turns up as a refugee we think that something unexpected will happen; maybe one of the guys will try to rape her, or eat her. No such luck; she’s absorbed into the fraternity and the movie plods on. It ends with a note of triumph, not that I could hear it as the guy next to me gathered up his coat and briefcase and left with a minute or two to go before the closing credits.

And that’s what it had to have been like at Oscar screenings for each of these films. Dutiful, unenthusiastic watching, everyone mentally grabbing for his or her belongings. Best Picture? Nope. Actors? Feh. Writing? Nada. Sound Editing? Nah. Makeup? Well, the prisoners looked thin and starved and had bad teeth and weird tattoos, and it’s Peter Weir, so, yeah, makeup. Don’t misunderstand; I appreciate good character makeup and like that it gets its due. Yet these are slap-in-the-face nominations when so much more was expected. Their winning, while great for the artists, will only underscore the meagerness. Barney’s Version, Oscar winner: Best Makeup. Wonderful in tandem with a bucketful of other nominations, a little humiliating on its own.

We’ll have more to say about the Oscars as they draw near. (Someone will; I may have little bottles to wash.) This time of the year always gets me thinking about The Oscar (1966), when Tony Bennett rails about “the glass mountain called ‘success.’” Better to be at the top, though, than with a toehold.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention No Concessions: This Year's Loser Oscar Nominees | Popdose -- Topsy.com

  • http://jackfear.blogspot.com Jack Feerick

    Some excellent points and insights here, but your aside about a possible Best Picture win for True Grit rubbed me the wrong way. See, I’m not crazy about remakes either, but this…

    “…no one recalls the prior Bounty and the the original Ben-Hur was a silent movie.”

    …strikes me as a highly-selective and convenient set of excuses. While we’re tossing around caveats like that, why not add that the 1969 True Grit was not a very good movie, and that Wayne was not very good in it? Because it wasn’t, and he wasn’t. Seriously. have you watched it lately? I have, for my sins. Just because it beat the Coens to the post by a good 40 years, that does not in any way make it the definitive version.

    And True Grit is (like Bounty and Ben Hur, for that matter) less a remake than an alternate adaptation of the novel. Filmmakers will continue to turn to literature for inspiration, and those adaptations are not in direct competition with each other. Was Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juliet a remake of Zeffirelli’s? Of course not. Both versions can be watched with pleasure, because for all that the framework is the same, they’re totally different film experiences. Using the same source material, they shoot for different effects; judge them not by how they compare to one another or even to the source material, but by how well they achieve what they set out to do.

    And that, I think, is about the only criterion by which you can judge a film’s success or failure; whether it does what it means to do.

  • JonCummings

    Though they spawned higher-profile acting nominations, the last two movies I’ve trudged into theaters to see seem to qualify similarly as “Loser Nominees”: Rabbit Hole and Blue Valentine. Both are intimate, portrait-of-a-marriage miniatures that just sort of sit there — the four hours spent in the two films lack the emotional heft of one shared glance between Eric and Tami on “Friday Night Lights.” Rabbit Hole has the more interesting premise (adjusting to life after a child’s death), but doesn’t do much of anything with it. Blue Valentine is a pointless, nonsensical mess of a movie that surrounds a single wonderful scene (in the storefront) with scads of “realistic” bad hair, grainy camerawork and ugly sex.

    Neither Nicole Kidman nor Michelle Williams acquits herself particularly well — if theirs are two of the five best performances of the year, then it was a horrible year for actresses. (It’s lamentable that Julianne Moore and Hailee Steinfeld weren’t included in this category.)

    Robert Osborne may introduce Rabbit Hole once, upon its TCM premiere, but after that I imagine it will be relegated to the 9 a.m. slot traditionally given to “let’s nominate Hepburn/Taylor/Streep again” films — while Blue Valentine likely will disappear into un-televise-able oblivion.

    BTW, Bob, I know your opinion here is far more credible than mine, but I loved the murky, fog-encompassed look of The King’s Speech. Cinematography is a great category this year — there are good arguments to be made for each film, except maybe The Social Network.

  • http://robertcashill.blogspot.com BobCashill

    Fill yer hands…

    After all this considered opining it’s a cliche to say different strokes for different folks, but there it is. As it happens I did see the original TRUE GRIT recently (gorgeous print on TCM HD) and it held up as well I had remembered, as well as any square western from 1969 (THE WILD BUNCH that year wasn’t exactly the norm). It’s an iconic Wayne performance if not his best, Glen Campbell continues in the tradition of the Duke riding shotgun with singers (Ricky Nelson, etc.), and the “Arkansas” locations weren’t fooling anyone. But director Henry Hathaway knew the studio western terrain as well as anyone, and he gets a lot more mileage out of the bad guys–Barry Pepper is an intriguing twist on Robert Duvall, but Josh Brolin is a virtual cameo compared to Jeff Corey.

    There are things I liked about the remake (and it is a remake, source material aside) but I just couldn’t get on its wavelength, which is OK; I loved A SERIOUS MAN. The Coens are very slippery; I felt the new one dawdled where it should have strode and idled where it needed to accelerate, and I had a hard time with Bridges’ dialogue-swallowing enunciation. When I sit down with the Blu-ray (and that’s a distinct possibility, despite my reservations) it’ll be with the closed caps on.

    I may be myopic about the whole remake/adaptation business, but I have no problem saying that I like the original, and that the remake draws as much on those elements and our familiarity with them as it does the book.

    Re: the look of SPEECH I found it affected, like the silly Dutch angles throughout Hooper’s JOHN ADAMS miniseries, but who knows the light levels may have been off and I saw a subpar presentation. I will be annoyed it Deakins loses for the 9th or 10th time to it–not that I think TRUE GRIT is his best work, either (and not for the Coens). That said I have no problems with it winning Best Picture; it’s a square, artless, well-acted, audience-satisfying piece, business-as-usual after the explosive introspection of THE HURT LOCKER, kind of like…the original TRUE GRIT. Maybe the Coens will remake it in 30 years with Daniel Radcliffe and the 2041 audience will jump all over it.

    It’s hard to imagine anyone bringing the same brittle intensity to RABBIT HOLE as Kidman; the emotions there are right in her wheelhouse, and I thought she played the hell out of it, not that it’s the kind of movie that allows for anyone playing the hell out of it. Such control, nothing horrible about it, while BLUE VALENTINE spins off its axis, again a matter of taste. I’m not sure her being nommed makes much sense without Gosling up there, too, but who knows how these things go down.

    As far as my credibility is concerned, well, I’ve never seen a single episode of FRIDAY NIGHT LIGHTS or THE WIRE, but I have now seen both versions of I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. Something to ponder.