And the Oscar goes to … the wrong movie
Important Oscar questions:
In “Benjamin Button,” if Brad Pitt begins life as a teeny infant-sized old dude, why doesn’t he end life as an enormous baby? It makes more sense. Imagine the awesome special effects — Brad in diapers. Instead of his lover holding him in her lap at the end, she could burp a Gigantor-sized baby Pitt. Reacting to “Button’s” ending, some reviewers say, “aww.” Most of us say, “ewww!”
Did that dude in “The Wrestler” just volunteer to get staple-gunned? Woohoo! In reviews of “The Wrestler,” critics always mention Mickey Rourke’s own life: boozy, brawling, rising star — boozy, brawling, washed-up guy — boozy, brawling, comeback geezer. But we boozy, brawling Americans are really thinking: a) “Ewww. That dude just got staple-gunned. Awesome.” And b) “We’re glad Marisa Tomei went for a strip-club Oscar instead of Charlize Theron’s icky, serial-killer look.” Marisa is, like, awesome. (And yes, for guys, this qualifies as thinking).
Those are not exactly questions the Oscar cognoscenti dignify with comment. Luckily, you have me. In fact, Oscar competition pretentiousness leads to top-quality movies being ignored while lesser-quality movies score Best Picture. Oscar awards follow the Laws of Oscar Physics almost as certainly as apples follow gravity. The Laws of Oscar Physics hold that Best Picture nominations go to:
Big, exotic, technically interesting productions: “Benjamin Button” (a technically spectacular “Twilight Zone” episode starring Brad Pitt aging backward) and “Slumdog Millionaire” (exotic locations, game show fairy tale, a gorgeous love interest — and — bonus! — feces dunking, ewww!). Good movies. Neither was one of the best five movies of 2008, yet both snagged Best Picture nominations.
Nazi-equals-bad movies: “The Reader” (an excellent small movie) would go un-nominated had it involved the evil doings in Stalin’s empire or Latin America. WWII lends films extra Oscar credit for gravitas — boosting Oscar odds for great and not great movies alike.
Politically correct messages and important topics: Thus “Frost/Nixon” and “Milk.” In the ’40s, “Gentleman’s Agreement,” starring oh-so-perfect Gregory Peck, snagged a nomination while condemning anti-Semitism. In the 1960s, Sidney Poitier was a nobly perfect African-American. Great people, important messages.
But the greatest movies are more gray than black-and-white. The real-life Harvey Milk engaged in risky bathhouse sex. “Milk’s” director, who is gay, says of San Francisco’s ’70s gay scene: “[It was] pretty alarming … thousands of men on the street picking each other up, having sex every night in sex clubs and drugs.” This inconvenient truth is left on the movie’s margins.
In “Schindler’s List,” we see Oskar Schindler as a womanizing drinker, partying with Nazis. We love his trickster heroism all the more. “Milk” takes a truly admirable hero and Disney-fies him, making a still good, but lesser, movie as a result.
More Laws of Oscar Physics:
Wanna win Best Picture? Stop that laughing this minute! The heavy, the epic, the technical whiz-bang win (“No Country for Old Men,” “Crash,” “Gladiator,” “Return of the King”). This decade’s greatest movie (OK, tied with “Munich”) is “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” has stellar acting, brilliant writing, multilayered stories, unequalled directing, an awesome soundtrack — and one huge disadvantage: It’s hilarious. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture.
“About a Boy”? “Charlie Wilson’s War”? Both brilliant. Both hilarious. Both even say meaningful things about the human condition (if you’re into that). Not even nominated. “The Life of Brian” is the best comedy of all time, and one of the most intellectual films ever made (if you’re into that). Not nominated.
Serial killers, reverse aging and gladiators slay real life. If there were the same ratio of serial killers in real life as in movies, we would all be buried in a basement. When did you last meet a genius serial killer a la Hannibal Lechter? “The Wrestler,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” and “Doubt” all deal with real struggles (work, love life, children) — unpredictable stories well-written, well-directed and well-acted featuring complicated characters. These great films include violence, but in a context more familiar to our real world. “The Wrestler” is 2008’s best movie. “The Wrestler” wasn’t even nominated for Best Picture. (Maybe it needed better staple-gun special effects?)
Sometimes the Laws of Oscar Physics work well. “Schindler’s List” won Best Picture. For once, Oscar got it right. Same with “Gandhi.” Yet the pretentious Laws of Oscar Physics sometimes backfire. Oscar, and the reviewers who guide Oscar, feed the perception of “Schindler’s List” and “Gandhi” as noble, intellectual films, but who wants noble Friday nights? Yet these great movies depict real action heroes of tremendous bravery and charisma in exciting movies — way more popcornworthy than (snore) another guy playing dress-up as a comic book bat.
I’ve nothing against a movie about a super-tiny old dude who grows younger. I watch “The Twilight Zone” too, but sorry Brad, “The Wrestler,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” “Doubt” and “Tropic Thunder” are all better movies than “Benjamin Button.” But these great movies can’t overcome the Laws of Oscar Physics — even with a staple gun!
Sean Faircloth lives in Bangor.