The Oscars: They're stupid, pointless, overblown and mean nothing about a film's quality or importance (look at 1958 and marvel at the near-complete absence of Hitchcock's arguably greatest work, "Vertigo" (1958)). Yet I can't help but care. They are the ultimate example of "the Ugly." So let's weigh in on a few things, shall we?
The technical awards are the biggest fraud. Because it's not really "Best Costume Design" or "Best Film Editing," but "Best Film Editing in a film we've nominated for a bunch of other things, oh, and let's throw in a few summer flicks so we don't look all high and mighty." I mean, do you think a forgettable film like "Wanted" (2008) honestly stands a chance of winning "Best Sound Mixing" against "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008), "The Dark Knight" (2008) or "Slumdog Millionaire" (2008), even if it does have the best sound mixing? Of course not. "Dark Knight," "Benny" and "Slumdog" will gobble these up like the overrated vultures that they are.
On to Heath Ledger, who won "Best Supporting Actor" the second they signed his death certificate. The masses and critics were clamoring for a posthumous Oscar before "The Dark Knight" trailer even came out. And when Ledger wins, the Academy will be framed as finally looking past the hype of prestige films and recognizing a good performance for what it is. Somebody shoot me.
Furthermore, I have a problem with people who say, "Well, who can you think of that would deserve it more?" Because — like an ardent pro-choicer hearing "How can you kill innocent babies?" — I cannot help but think that the other side is automatically assuming an initial premise with which I just don't agree. I can think of dozens of people more deserving. I would have nominated Ledger for a Razzie, thank you very much!
It's obvious that the Academy holds itself to few, if any, ethical standards. Officially, being nominated for "Best Animated Feature" does not prevent a film from getting nominated for "Best Picture." Watch "Wall-E" (2008). Watch most other films from this year, including many of the nominated ones. Hell, if you're a critic-lover, you can even read the reviews. Then come back to me, and tell me how honest the Academy is being.
Speaking of "Wall-E," since it's the only one of the nominees that's also nominated for "Best Original Screenplay," it's pretty much a shoo-in. The same goes for "Man on Wire" (2008), as that's the only documentary that anyone has heard of.
I doubt that "Milk" (2008) or "Slumdog" will take home the big gold daddy, but the Academy may try to do a repeat of Ang Lee of "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) and give one of these films the directing nod. One comrade of mine likened this to a Tufts freshman trying to figure out which will give him or her more cred: having a gay friend or an Indian friend. Granted, Gus Van Sant is actually gay while Danny Boyle is just a 21st century example of British imperialism, but who really cares about the actual director anyway?
On the topic of directors, I must ask, oh Academy, why dost thou hate Darren Aronofsky so? Your omission of "Requiem for a Dream" (2000) was a lamentable mistake, but its small initial release, experimental style and scary content at least gave me reason to understand your vile prejudice. "The Fountain" (2006) was a misunderstood masterpiece, and I would have been shocked if your meager minds could have grasped its beauty. But "The Wrestler" (2008)? Amidst the craze, the hype and the awards, how could you only give Marisa Tomei and Mickey Rourke nominations?
Did you fail to see how Aronofsky's camera so beautifully works like brilliant prose? Did the script not move you, with its mild nuances and strong dialogue? Was the film itself so above you that you had to toss "Best Picture" nominations to pieces of garbage?
And let's not forget the most horrible snub in the midst of the atrocious "Wrestler" hatred: Bruce Springsteen. As a true and proud Jersey-ite, I have to ask where the *#&$ was Bruce's nomination? Only three best songs, two of them from "Slumdog" (when the only memorable song in that movie was MIA's "Paper Planes"), and no love for The Boss?
So here's how this years awards are going to go down: Tomei will lose, and that is fair. I would give best supporting actress to Viola Davis for managing to upstage Meryl Streep. But will Rourke lose as well? His performance is astounding, but the Academy let their Aronofsky-hatred overpower them once before when they gave Ellen Burstyn's Oscar to Julia Robert's insipid turn as Erin Brockovich.
One can hope that Rourke will win or, if not him, Sean Penn (and chances are that the Academy is at least sane enough for that). I prefer Rourke since he created his character from scratch, and I never know where to draw the line between acting and an impression when playing a historical figure. Frank Langella steered away from a traditional Nixon impression but veered into the deranged lovechild of Nixon and Jimmy Stewart. It's doubtful, but I have a horrible fear that the pretty, popular boy, Brad Pitt, will take home the golden boy for his role as Benjamin Button, which was as compelling as a vacuum cleaner instruction manual.
Join me next week when I weigh in on the big five mommas of them all. And, oh yes, I will not be happy.
--
Devin Toohey is a senior majoring in classics. He can be reached at Devin.Toohey@tufts.edu.
