This year's batch of nominees marks nine long decades of the Academy Awards. With that in mind, it's interesting to view these nominees in terms of how they represent the incremental changes to Oscar's palette over the years. There are of course, certain preferences of his to which he continues to hold on to tightly, but overall, I'd say that there's much to be pleased with here. So herein lies some of my first impressions to Oscar's Best of 2017:
There was an article I read this morning about the Academy's continued dedication to diversify its voting bloc. Notably, they've added 774 members this year, an increase from 683 last year and 322 the year prior. While I agree that it's important to have diverse names in the running at the Academy Awards, I am against the aggressive PC-policing that has plagued the awards in recent years: this idea that Oscar must have contenders of color, essentially requiring a quota of sorts, or else there will be hell to pay by the social justice warriors of the Web, is problematic.
Look, I've not seen Get Out. Or Roman J. Israel, Esq. Or Mudbound. I can't yet attest to the quality of those films and performances. But I have seen Octavia Spencer in The Shape of Water, and I don't think that looking wide-eyed while uttering out variances of "Elisa! What. Are. You. Doing?!" for the entirety of the film should have reaped her a third nomination. I've seen Tiffany Haddish in Girls Trip, and thought that that performance was marginally enjoyable but also pretty clumsy and frivolous (kind of like how she performed as this morning's nominations co-announcer).
However, I'm beyond thrilled that Greta Gerwig got a nomination for Best Director. Lady Bird is one of two films from this season that truly surprised me (the other being The Florida Project, which, the fact that it did not get nods for Picture or Director is appalling, but I digress), and her recognition here is, in my opinion, totally deserved. I get the feeling that if this were twenty or so years ago, she'd likely have missed out to the likes of McDonagh or Spielberg. The preaching of diversity is a flawed but important argument to be had, and if the aim of diversifying the Academy can allow for more nominations like Gerwig's, I'm all for it.
...Which leads me to the case of Hong Chau's snub. I understand that not a lot of people cared for Downsizing (partly because of the film, partly because of the maybe problematic kind of role she played, partly because of the controversy of Matt Damon attempting to be a thought leader on sexual assault leading into the film's release), so I knew the odds were slightly stacked against her. But I was hoping for a Cinderella story here. As a Vietnamese-American, it'd have truly been fantastic to see a Vietnamese actor nominated at the Academy Awards. As someone who has always loved the arts, I understand the deeply-embedded conflict of being Asian and realizing a non-traditional, artistic career route for oneself. Chau has spoken about how tough it was for her to find success in acting, and how she has thought about quitting time and time again. How great it'd have been for her if this moment had come to full fruition!
In spite of all the incessant talk about diversity this, diversity that, it's extremely rare to see a Southeast Asian - or hell, any Asian - actor recognized at the Academy Awards, nevertheless have plumb roles that would allow them the chance to be recognized. Asian actors as a whole (South, Southeast, East, whatever) sadly see very little representation in mainstream American entertainment. The last - and, to this day, the only - Southeast Asian actor to have been nominated by the Academy was Haing S. Ngor in 1984. I won't take this moment to preach about how Chau should have gotten a nomination - but I merely want to express how disappointed I am that she did not.
One of the actresses who may have taken Chau's spot is Lesley Manville, and what a great nomination this is! She is superb in Phantom Thread, and in a way, I see this as justice for her largely ignored work (by awards bodies, that is) for Another Year. Sure, BAFTA may have thrown Manville a bone so this wasn't an absolute surprise, but I was under the impression that that was another one of those throwaway nominations they often give to their brethren and sistren.
That said, I wasn't expecting Phantom Thread to be nominated for Best Picture nor was I expecting it to land Paul Thomas Anderson a directing nomination. Seemed to me that the movie had been received rather quietly, but alas, it was impactful. What a lovely surprise to see it land as hard as it did. That said...
I ask you: who in God's name, aside from maybe the Brits themselves, left Darkest Hour thinking, "THIS is the Best Picture of the year!"? My disdain for Darkest Hour has grown considerably since I first watched it. For all the progressive choices the Academy has made in recent years, it's sad that the tried and true go-for-gold strategy of WWII+Biopic+"transformative" performance still stands as baiting tactics that work.
Darkest Hour's recognition here digs into a couple of things that generally piss me off these days. I find it sad that 90 years after Wings and 70+ years after the fact, war (but more so WWII-era) films are still all the rage. That will likely never change. I will be here ten years from now, talking about the nominees for Oscar's 100th, most likely bitching about the same thing. I'm annoyed because Darkest Hour represents the very definition of what you might think of when you hear the words "Oscar bait," and in spite of the changes the Academy is trying to make to diversify itself and the contenders they nominate, Darkest Hour is as standard as they come. The fact that it is basically a companion piece of Dunkirk irks me even more.
I'm sick of WWII films. And I'm sick of (most) biopics. I'm sick of Best Actor awards perennially going to performances of "real life people who endured X at this significant moment in time" (see: Colin Firth, Daniel Day-Lewis, Matthew McConaughey, Eddie Redmayne, Leonardo DiCaprio) and I'm sick of awards going to actors playing British leaders (see: Helen Mirren, Colin Firth, Meryl Streep). If superhero movies are the film industry's creative undoing, "important" biopics aren't exactly much better.
The only silver lining here is that Kristin Scott Thomas didn't get nominated for doing what Helena Bonham Carter pretty much already did in The King's Speech (to this day I'm still pissed about The King's Speech, BTW). While I personally thought she was fine, I think I'd be raging even more if yet another supportive wife-type landed itself in the Supporting Actress race this year.
Darkest Hour's Best Picture nomination only further seals Gary Oldman's fate come March 4. I'd hope for some more original storytelling for next year, but I know we've already got Christian Bale as Dick Cheney and Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong waiting in the wings. The Best Actor category is in need of some serious inspiration.
Aaaand last but not least, the personification of the phrase "old habits die hard." I'll keep this brief because I've already rehashed this language three times now (here, here and here), but...long live Mary Louise Streep.*
*And yes, per my rant about Darkest Hour, I'd have been supremely pissed if they passed on Streep for Judi Dench playing Queen Victoria (again). I also realize that per my rant about biopics, this one may seem a bit hypocritical. But the fact of the matter is, Streep is my favorite actress and she transcends all sensibilities.
Sidebar: when was the last time we had four Best Actress nominees in four different films also nominated Best Picture? This must be some sort of record.
And, for what it's worth:
I agree with your thoughts about the increasingly PC nature of the nominating process, as if the open slots are characterized by race, gender or whatever will appease social media critics before the nominations are announced. Of course, the staid Academy painted itself into this corner but it's really the industry's fault. The dearth of decent roles for women, especially older women, and people of varied ethnicities is decades old. Maybe it's growing pains to see so much effort addressed to try to change this, but in the long run I think it's all for the better.
ReplyDeleteAs for the nominees, the only big surprise for me is Denzel Washington. His movie wasn't very good and he's had far better roles that never came close to a nomination. I think this one's a combination of James Franco's fast fall from grace leaving an open slot and it being a make-up nomination for his loss last year for "Fences", a performance many thought deserved the award. Oh well, I think Washington is one of the greatest film actors ever so I can't really say I'm ever bothered when he gets a nomination.
I like that there are quite a few unique and interesting nominated performances beyond the usual oscar-baity stuff this year (Hawkins, Kaaluya, and actually even DDL, whose performance I LOVED). Agree with you about Hong Chau, and I do wonder if the unpopularity of Downsizing and Matt Damon this year played a part in causing her snub.
ReplyDelete