Well Ladies and Gentlemen, the Oscars have come and gone for another year and once again they have taken me on an emotional roller-coaster of anticipation and inevitable disappointment and profound confusion. I did say before that I was going to write-up the review of Oscar-nominated Lincoln before yesterday’s ceremony but I got too lazy and went to an all day film event in North London about Black History and the black activist in me (film black activist…a story for another post) diverted my attention away from the Oscars, instead to campaigning for the proper funding, production and distribution of Black British filmmaking.

As I have stated in my previous Oscar entry, I feel I’m too old and love my sleep too much to watch the actual ceremony. Also my sanity pleads that I don’t. I have no real interest in watching the three and a half hour-long cringefest, (judging by the critical assassination it’s getting I might have dodged a bullet by missing the actual ceremony) nor do I ever care, bar Sandra Bullock or Meryl Streep,  for the speeches. I treat awards ceremonies a bit like football, give me the highlights or give me nothing at all. Actually its more like skip the highlights, just give me the final results, so I can rant about how wrong and out of touch everything is.

2013 has been no different. In fact, its surpassed itself, in my humble opinion, in how erroneous it has been. I genuinely think that in years to come, when film journalists do their inevitable write-ups of  glaring Oscar mistakes/omissions of the past,  like they do every February of every year, 2013 will feature quite heavily. I’m not saying all of this as a sour-puss because practically none of my picks were winners. I say this because I am genuinely perplexed as to some of the awardees. There were plenty of nominees I didn’t particularly favour but I could understand why they might win (Jessica Chastain for instance) but some of the winners are inexplicable to me.

In my original Oscar post, I stated that the Oscars essentially where the Eurovision Contest of film and I stand by that statement. It’s all about who you know, how much money you have to campaign with and whether the film plays to the dynamics of the audience/Academy. Bearing all this in mind, it’s not really surprising that some films came out best even if they seemed undeserving but that doesn’t mean that one can’t wish that the Academy awarded for merit. Alas one can dream…

So without further ado, I will revisit the categories I picked in my last Oscar post and take a lot at the results…with dismay and maybe delight…mostly dismay though.

Best Picture

Firstly I’d like to make a suggestion. Based on looking at results over the Academy Awards history, they should consider renaming categories like ‘Best Picture’ as… “Best Campaign’…’Film with Most Money’…’Most Pandering Film’.

But whatever, I have a couple of theories as to why Argo won. None of them have anything to do with the quality of the film.

Theory One –  Was this win part of a massive campaign of a public apology to Ben Affleck for all the years of ridicule he received as the somewhat obnoxious friend riding on the coattails of his more charismatic talented friend Matt Damon?

Theory Two – Was this win part of a public campaign to forgive Affleck for inflicting cinema audiences around the world with woeful performances in the likes of Pearl Harbour, Daredevil, Paycheck, Gigli and Bennifer to name but a few of the atrocities committed to screen. Is this a parental caring push the world thinks Affleck needs to move him away from acting and more into directing instead. Because these are the only options I can think of that can explain how anyone on this earth thinks that Argo was a the best film of 2012, a historically biased so-so thriller, over the near masterpiece of Amour and just plain better works of Django Unchained and Beasts of the Southern Wild.

My personal beef with Argo is not because it beat Amour, (which I still believe is unforgivable two days on) but because as a standalone film itself, I can only describe it as sketchy in its attempt at historical accuracy. As I was watching the film and with my knowledge of Iranian and American relations as equally if not more sketchy at best, I was aware that the film had a…naive, elementary school-like attitude to its storytelling. Everything was so black and white. American good and Iranians bad. CIA angels of democracy and peace and other nonsense. This was typified in the closing credit blurb with there a quote along the lines of the CIA having been able to demonstrate the saving of lives without resorting to violence or loss of life. I remember at the time audibly scoffing at that statement as I recalled that at in the same decade, the FBI and American government had their COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) exposed, which told how members of civil rights groups and social movements had been persecuted, falsely imprisoned and killed by the same government who the film lauds and praises.

I took away from the film that it was another skewed, whitewashed idea of patriotism so typical of Hollywood films. As long as you are perceived to be the “other” (non caucasian European) your story will never be told properly,  responsibility that the powers that be in Hollywood neither want nor should be trusted with. What I didn’t fully comprehend at the time was the danger in such biased storytelling until I read this eloquent quote from Mahsa Hedayati, the sister of a work colleague:

“I’m surprised, and disappointed, that society no longer sets high standards for art creators. I have heard the “it’s just a movie” argument far too often when it comes to Argo. But I personally believe that artists, including those who create film, have a responsibility to positively shape humanity because they have the capacity to reach a wide audience and influence people’s perceptions of the world. As an Iranian living in the western world, I am too often shocked by how western media constantly vilifies Iran, and Iranians. No wonder so many people in the US gasp when they find out the person they are talking to is Iranian; just look at the hateful narrative of mainstream news. In a time where talk of war unfortunately prevails, what Ben Affleck and his producers should have done is to share an alternative storyline about US-Iran relations. One that promotes peace, dialogue, and human progress. That is what I expect from an artist; Argo fed into the shallow and inaccurate portrayal of Iran. While a few people will regard the film as mere entertainment, my hunch is that the masses – either consciously or unconsciously – will unfortunately view it as a factual piece. So I suppose that my issue is not just with Argo. It’s with the standards we as a society have set for ourselves when it comes to art. Artists are ambassadors and it’s the ones who can have a peaceful impact on the world that should merit awards.”

I know that there are many of you reading this who think, all this debate over a film that essentially marketed itself as a thriller. However, it didn’t market itself as such. You don’t need to touch upon a historical event to create a fun thriller. If you want to make a film about a history that is still so politically volatile, then one has to be willing to accept the responsibility to comes with it and quite frankly, Affleck and Co failed with Argo.

Last week I attended an event at my workplace where I watched Once Upon A Time When We Were Coloured. The director Tim Reid was in attendance to give an introduction and Q & A. What was very interesting about the discussion was the idea that everything whether it be a film, a book, a piece of art or anything that involves telling a story is all propaganda. Everyone when they write a screenplay or the first day directing on set, you are about to give to your audience your propaganda. Your viewpoint or ideas of the world is what you want to express, whether your intentions are to make the audience laugh, cry, think or just entertain, you’re doing so through your propaganda. If you’re story involves the representation of a group of people, the way you treat them in your film gives a good intention of your underlying beliefs in your propaganda. Argo demonstrates that Ben Affleck and apparently the rest of Hollywood and western filmmaking world have a somewhat skewed prejudiced view of Iranians, that they have convinced themselves is general fact. Last night’s win demonstrated this agreement of this propaganda by rewarding for irresponsible storytelling.

My issues with Argo are much more superficial. It quite simply is not a great film and is in no way demonstrable of excellent filmmaking as all these accolades suggest. I will admit it was mostly fun and competent as a thriller until the last twenty minutes, when what already a tense story was injected with ridiculous Hollywood thriller tropes that practically derailed the film into farce.

The script too was uneven. While there were plenty of laughs to be had with Alan Arkin and John Goodman back in Hollywood but the hostages, who the film centres on, were merely more than talking mannequin objects that Affleck and co have to rescue. The only thing the actors seemed to be required to do is look like the people they’re based on and look worried all the time. The Iranians were equally portrayed as one-dimensional. Just angry mobs all the time, with one token conflicted Iranian lady who assists the hostages escape as if the film wants to say “See! We’ve shown that they’re not all bad”.

This brings me on to Affleck’s presence on screen which is still baffling for two reasons. One is that accuracy of how the film looks seems to have been paramount, obviously more important than the accuracy of the story. So why oh why did Affleck cast himself as a character based on a man of Mexican descent who at the end you see looks nothing like him? (He’s two for two in the pissing off of races). Everybody else looks like a doppelgänger of their original character and then there’s Affleck sticking out like a sore thumb. At this point, all a person can do is laugh.

Combine this with Affleck’s acting, ( I will admit I used to be a bit of an apologist when it came to Affleck’s acting ability because of Hollywoodland, that is until I saw To The Wonder and then that part of me died)  In Argo, Affleck strikes an impressive physical presence but nothing more. He is an acting vacuum if you will. I do remember thinking, while watching the film that anyone would be have been better, and learning after the fact that the titular character is the only one who doesn’t look like the real person, I am even more convinced ANYONE would have been better.

From this overlong rant I hope  you can understand why I was equal parts mystified and disappointed by Argo‘s win on Sunday. As I said before and I’m sure I’ll say again before this article is done, the Oscars is the Eurovision Song Contest and politics wins when’s all said and done. Politics I think also had a part to play in the next win that also failed to impress…

Best Actress

There is an article floating about on the interwebs about Miss Jennifer Lawrence that fairly encapsulates my feelings towards her (http://jezebel.com/5986705/11-reasons-why-jennifer-lawrence-is-your-bff-in-your-head). I saw Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone was enamoured by her talent so I was equally excited it to watch her in the first Hunger Games, which her performance rightly exalted the film. I was also pleasantly surprised that in the few interviews I seen her in that she’s funny, adorable, down to earth and personable. She’s not so earnest and concerned at being liked by everyone (like say Anne Hathaway who as a result is unfairly criticized as a result). She’s self-deprecating and apparently always hungry and likes everyone to know. Lawrence has a I-just-don’t-give-a-fuck attitude that’s not obnoxious like Joaquin Phoenix, but affably grounded in a sense that she’s just enjoying the journey she’s on, fully aware it might be a long one or just as easily over when the next flavour of the month appears. All in all,  she’s just normal….and that is somewhat rare in the world of Hollywood and makes her all the more endearing.

Despite all this it saddens me to say that I don’t think she deserved the win on Sunday. Firstly because the film itself, Silver Lining’s Playbook is inexplicable in the praise and awards it has achieved. It’s at best an enjoyable little film that is a little uneven (especially past the hour mark) with some good performances. In my humble opinion, I thought that Bradley Cooper (may you all forgive me for saying this) gave a better performance than Lawrence, who I found to be good overall but sometimes a little forced and in no way better than her role in Winter’s Bone.

As you read in my previous Oscar post, Lawrence didn’t even come in the top three of best performances. Emmanuelle Riva gave a much more nuanced even breathtaking performance in Amour. It angers me that I keep reading articles and hearing people say that those Riva should have won for ridiculous reasons such as her age, health and coming all the way from Paris. No, she should have won because she was flat-out the Best Actress. It seems though that she has the misfortune of being French. The same as Quvenzhane Wallis has the misfortune of being in a film that looks at the forgotten/disenfranchised American citizens in a post-Katrina US and Jessica Chastain in a controversial film about American methods of gaining intelligence in its war in the Middle East. In hindsight, Silver Lining’s Playbook plays to the sensitivities of the Academy voters and was a safe bet, so it’s not so surprising that Lawrence won. I still strongly believe and forever will, that Riva was robbed but I’m not too sad because that Lawrence seems like a nice girl.

Other awards….

Best Actor

No surprise that Daniel Day-Lewis won for Lincoln. He is the best part of what is a too earnest, too turgid film. What is surprising is that his speech was quite funny (the only part of the ceremony I revisited on YouTube, alongside the God-awful “We Saw Your Boobs” song, which  in my opinion is typical poor Academy attempts at ‘comedy writing’ but what is infinitely more grotesque in that it references being turned on by the sight of seeing boobs where four of the actresses mentioned where acting in rape scenes at the time. That there is why I don’t watch the Oscars). I’m used to seeing Day-Lewis so serious, especially when he’s standing alongside his wife Rebecca Miller (who happens to be the late playwright Arthur Miller’s daughter. They both share the same unimpressed glare), so it was pleasant to see genuine happiness and good humour at winning for the third time.

I still think Joaquin Phoenix gave the better performance in The Master,  a completely fearless performance that totally redeemed him in my eyes after enduring the atrocity that was I’m Still Here. But I guess what ever he was being in I’m Still Here may not be that far removed from his actual persona and that kind of attitude probably doesn’t sit well with the Academy. Not that Phoenix cares I suspect.

It’s too bad that The Master didn’t win more awards, for the performances at least. All were pitch perfect, however as my work colleague suggests, the film came out so early in the year, it was probably mostly forgotten and those who do remember it, remember it as being quite divisive. And I don’t really see The Master as being a film that panders to the Academy demographic.

Best Supporting Actress

This may be why Amy Adams was also overlooked. In my predictions I suspected that although Adams was the most deserving, Anne Hathaway would be a shoe in. Hathaway won and I can’t complain too much because her 15 minutes in Les Miserables was the best in what was the hardest film I’ve had to sit through all year. Even more so than To The Wonder. I haven’t seen Hathaway’s acceptance speech because as much as she’s a nice girl (she’s lovely in real life) I’ve seen enough Sally Fields-esque acceptance speeches to last me a lifetime.

Best Supporting Actor

Christophe Waltz! The only one of my predictions I got right! I love that he won because he was quite simply awesome in Django and any recognition that film gets (I know it also won Best Original Screenplay which it rightly should have), I’m in full support of.

In my predictions I also included the chances of Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln because I thought that Lincoln would be a shoe-in for awards, especially the acting. Or so I thought. Seems Daniel Day-Lewis is alone in his win for Lincoln. Speilberg must be scratching his head. Has he underestimated the gullibility of the Academy? Lincoln plays like the quintessential Oscar bait and yet got very little in recognition. Maybe it was hard work for the voters too?

I will admit that despite Lincoln playing as a bit of a slog, Tommy Lee Jones gave a really good performance. I’ve got a group of silver-haired actors who I have watched over the years, go through the motions, giving distracted performances of  slight variations of  the same person; Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, Alan Arkin and Tommy Lee Jones all are in this group. I was surprised at the liveliness and oomph Jones puts into the role, a role I think he thoroughly enjoyed it and can be seen in how multi-faceted his portrayal was compared to the oft one-dimensional sounding board performances of seemingly everyone else (bar Daniel Day-Lewis and surprisingly non creepy but supposed to be creepy and usually is creepy James Spader).

Final Thoughts!

Phew! I’m done! I’m about a thousand words over the limit and a few days past my deadline but I’m done with the Oscars…until next February, where I’ll be back (hopefully) using my blog as therapy as I blast off about how useless and corrupt everything is. Hopefully, you’ve enjoyed the ride with me and have some comments to make. I’d like to hear whether you agree, disagree or even managed to finish reading the post!

Up next: Once Upon  A Time When We Were Coloured review