The Oscar nominations were announced today, and as a raving Dark Knight fanboy I feel it my duty to complain about the conspicuous absence of that film from the Best Picture nominees. I'm sure this same sentiment will be echoed in literally millions of places on the internet today. However, as misguided as the decision may be I can't say it comes as a surprise.
Sometimes the Academy nominate the best movies, but more often they nominate what I like to call "play-movies"--films that have important content and subject matter, sure, but whose stories lack the visual punch and over-the-top emotional involement that belongs to movies, making them more appropriate for the world of theater than film. (Indeed, Frost/Nixon originated as a play). Unfortunately, theater has almost vanished as a popular art form, and the only way these stories will ever get the attention they deserve is by being made into motion pictures. That's fine.
What worries me is that in honoring these stories as "the best" year in and year out, people begin to think that these movies are, in fact, "the best." Nothing is more ridiculous than giving awards for the arts, but we've been doing it since at least the Pythian Games so I can't really fault anyone for it. But these awards do affect the public conception--people begin to think that a DVD with "Best Picture" on the cover, whether they like it or not, is inherently better, or more important, than one without it. We all fall prey to this kind of thinking at one point or another.
Most people, however, didn't get involved with movies because of movies like The Reader. Personally, I like movies because movies are awesome. Not awesome like YHWH is awesome, but awesome in the silliest, most ridiculous, most explosion-filled sense of the word. Do I love sitting through 4 hours of beautiful cinematography, classical music, and upper-class 18th century decadence in Barry Lyndon? Hell yes. Do I love watching Perseus take on stop-motion Medusa in Clash of the Titans? Absolutely. Why do we then assign value judgments to movies based on the content?
Movies are about starships and lightsabers, time travel and monsters and superheroes and a ridiculous vision of love and romance, muppets, gladiators and robots, witches and vampires, kings and queens, zombies, and vampire puppet shows. Now I'm not saying we should worship every Michael Bay piece of manufactured excitement that comes our way. Not all movies are good. But there are excellent movies, year after year, in every single genre. Nothing makes one genre better than another, and the modern Academy really needs to get that through their skulls. People who really love movies love a ridiculous assortment of nonsense, and there's nothing in the world wrong with that.
The Dark Knight was the best movie this past year, and for me maybe the best movie of the last ten years. (Then again, I love a lot of movies from the last ten years). Heath Ledger should rightfully get his award for supporting actor, and I'm also very happy about Robert Downey Jr.'s nomination for such a wacky part. (Also, I think it'd be great if Frank Langella won for Frost/Nixon. Anyone who's played Skeletor deserves a bloody Oscar!) If I have to pick out of what's left, I'm going to go with Benjamin Button for Best Picture. It's a great movie, big, wondrous, and emotional, and I'd be happy to see it win.
But fifty years from now, 2008 will be remembered for The Dark Knight the way 1977 is remembered for Star Wars.
(And now the punchline: I actually think Annie Hall was just as deserving a Best Picture winner in '77 as Star Wars. Now Annie Hall vs. Empire Strikes Back? No contest.)
No comments:
Post a Comment