Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Shot up in bed yesterday morning with a single anxious thought running through my head: "Is this Oscar-night Sunday or what?"
My one and only, who remembers these things better than I do ("O look, there's Penelope Cruz lifting her feet so Ellen DeGeneres can vac the front-row carpet," etc), assured me in her own estimable 5 AM way that yes, it was indeed that unavoidable day (or night) . . . which means that by then I'll need a couple new inches of snow, so I can haul out the shovel, clear the town-house walks, slip on the ice and tear a rotator cuff, call 911 and get airlifted to the nearest emergency-room facility, as more or less did happen (except for the 911 transport) a Sunday or two ago. Just another Oscar-avoidance evening in the making . . .
Not that I hate Oscar so much, because actually I don't—I simply don't pay that much attention. And it's not an attitudinal or put-on thing—at least not mainly—since not once in my life have I ever watched the whole damn telecast straight through. Besides which, we just gave away our minimally operable 30-year-old Motorola—sometimes the antenna worked, on some of the channels anyway—so it's not even the NCAA Final Four for me this year.
But already you've probably scanned our online selection of Reader Oscar picks, to which I've contributed my own harebrained assortment of shipwreck candidates. A society of choosers is what we are, with everyone obliged to make at least a dozen or so whether he/she's inclined to or not—Hillary or Barack? Jif or Skippy? Toyota or Suzuki? M&M's or Mary Janes?—as part of the whole freedom package, what our "Western values" are all about, the kinds of things Al Qaeda and the Taliban allegedly want to kill us for.
Except: I couldn't have told you what was on the awards list without an official trot sheet spelling it all out in big, bold categories, like judicial retention ballots in general election years. Best picture—well, there's Reygadas's Silent Light, my own enthusiastic nominee for '07, with everything else an afterthought . . . except it didn't make any of the eligibles, right? Or best director—always P.T. Anderson, whatever he's been up to . . . which is pretty much how I decide on judges too: another one who's Irish—automatically out! And who are these other guys anyway? Yeah, the Coens, especially if crosscutting close-ups are your thing: what contemporary prefab "best direction" apparently comes down to these days. And don't even get me started on the Butterfly guy . . .
Also the screenplays (original or adapted) . . . also the, ahem, "performances" . . . also the cinematography (which seems more about calendar art and House Beautiful spreads than anything cinematographic—another one saved in the editing room!)—stuff you can't, or wouldn't even want to, single out if the movie's coming together the way it should. And "costumes"—the most radical being the ones that didn't exist in Ten Canoes (another ineligible: wrong country, wrong year), no bonnets or frippery, just the literal, unadorned, down-to-earth truth! But the year's deal breaker has to be "best supporting actor"—button-down dullards all, dependably skilled at what they do, also dependably forgettable: another month and we'll wonder what all the teapot fussing was for. Which is why, in that one lonely category, I initially opted for Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson from Southland Tales, just to be mean and ornery, but also as a provocation: enough of these judicious, measuring-rod approaches, the inconsequence of incremental "perfection." Like grading term papers . . . except it's supposed to be about "aaarrrrttt."
But now it's Paul Dano as my new, inspired supporting-actor "choice" (see comments thread here): better a raw, hysterically confused, freaked-out amateur than all that anally retentive baggage, somebody you can feel the conflicting energies coursing through (because they actually are!), remember indelibly for years—positively, negatively, whatever the alternative is fine.
So: Academy Awards with passion—who'd even dream of such a thing?
Its biggest knock is that it has no distinctive face – no platform on which to take a dump or heap donuts of praise upon. There isn’t even a (relatively small) jury (as in Cannes, etc.) from which to give its choices shape. It is a consensus, and – as with the recent Village Voice Film Poll (etc.) – its relevance depends on your fondness for the (too many) voices it collects. In the end, top-ten lists from you freaks mean more to me than any gold eunuch.
I do love the Oscars, though! It’s got tradition, red carpet babes, the occasional artiste sighting (this year: Anderson, Coens, your pick), and Movie Stars (Matt Damon, Ellen Page, your favorite)!
Pat G, that Dano-performance passion isn’t honored on Oscar night (or, if so, rarely), because it ain’t exactly about the art that night. But I guarantee Dano will be there, and if he ever does win one of those statues, you’ll see a passionate actor – which is the sort of passion the Academy Awards are all about anyway.
Cross-cutting close-ups? HUH? Have you ever seen a Coen brothers movie? Just because they don't bust out the split-field diopters, and opt for 7 minutes takes, doesn't mean that their films are directed extremely well.
The pacing on all of their films is great. They move their stories with a shark like force. Especially a film like NO COUNTRY.
I don't understand why, unless a picture is directed in an alienating way, you don't like.
The Coens are movies. They are everything movies should be.
And while there are movies that are completely different than the ones they make in tone, style and story, it doesn't void how wonderful their body of work is.
I do agree that the oscars are stupid though.
someone should call the weather channel, because I just agreed with Pat G. and Hell has officially frozen over.
as for the coens' "shark like force": what's next for the brothers, an adaptation of SHERMAN'S LAGOON?
well played mr. g. well played.
While I like RAISING ARIZONA, my favorites are FARGO and THE BIG LEBOWSKI, and a little BARTON FINK on the side.
I also adore THE HUDSUCKER PROXY. You may not, though. I know your stance on Preston.
Can't you give THE LADY EVE a little love!?
Well, the audience clearly wasn’t there for Anderson and Joel and Ethan, but how can Pat G and Fink knock the Awards when they honor their favorites?
and though i'm far from being a coen hater--no, really!--plz note that NO COUNTRY didn't make my top 30 list at all
also wondering why BARTON F. didn't list MILLER'S CROSSING among his coen faves ... or have i got you confused w/somebody else?
Increasingly, the critics and the academy are in close agreement regarding the year's best films, which is a far sight better than the Oscars of old, which merely gave a bit of faux-artistic gloss to the blockbusters (as the NY Times pointed out the other day).
Maybe Graham doesn't know enough about Oscar history to appreciate the difference between today's Oscars and the Oscars of yore.
It's nothing but a positive that "art" films and their ilk are getting the kind of attention afforded by the billion-strong (they say) viewership of the Oscars.
Graham is merely striking a pose. Like some critics at many "alternative" papers, he feels as if his job requires him to counter the "mainstream."
So he struggles to come up with reasons why the official Oscar winners and nominees aren't hip enough or arty enough to deserve Oscar's kiss.
Eventually, as a critic, you come to the realization that constantly striving to be hipper than thou, or to appear that way, is a dead end.
Better to use your critical judgment to decide what merits your praise, and then to go with that decision, rather than to worry
that some Hipsters on High somewhere might scorn you for hewing too close to the mainstream.
Realist -- though I (strongly) agree with your disdain for the many critics (and other alt-poseurs – “Hipsters on High”) who feel they must “counter the mainstream” (as if the quality of aaarrrrttt has anything to do with the exclusiveness or amount of its supporters!), I feel Pat G. (and Rosenbaum, who I’ve criticized for similar reason in the past, and who has other issues I won’t go into here) are less guilty of that particular brand of snobbery, or, rather, desperate preciousness, than others buzzing around the hive. Syntax Pat and wily Rosenbaum keep their eye on the cinematic ball.
For the record, and though I have weakness for the Oscars (good or bad, I’m always there), as far as the cinema goes, as far as the aaarrrrttt goes, I believe Pat G carries the torch Rosenbaum relinquished at the Reader. Truth be told, the Oscars scarcely reward the best of film – the Reader just does.
To Pat G’s credit, his Top 30 list is nothing like the Oscar list (nor is Rosenbaum’s, for that matter), but, yes, I think these Academy Awards show that Hollywood is more in agreement with the critics, or vice-versa depending on your perspective; I would say it has more to do with a younger, edgier generation of Hollywood, and it will be interesting to see if the low viewership will soften this year’s refreshing edge at next year’s Oscars.
also as i've said before: the list is about what i LIKE (whoa, ambiguity alert!), have "good" feeling for, not an assessment of "worthiness," just deserts, absolute value, etc--about which i haven't a clue ...
finally: my "complaint" about the oscars (if there is one, since it's mainly a lack of interest) is probably with the "choosing" process itself: jif or skippy, m&m's or mary janes, etc * SOMETHING has to be "best picture," "best supporting actor," "best film editing," etc, even if there's nothing remotely out there to light anyone's fire--a variant on murphy's law: awards expanding to fit the space allotted to 'em * which is why "passion"'s utterly irrelevant and presumably always will be--it's not that selections could/should be "better" (though that too, while we're at it), but that they HAVE to be made at all: more obligation than love in this, a ritual duty discharged ... like voting for judges on election day
and what does ANY of this have to do with the act of watching films? * "here's what i like, these are the reasons"--maybe something sharable in that, how, e.g., THERE WILL BE BLOOD or BOUDU SAVED FROM DROWNING becomes embedded in the culture
Thanks, as always, for your provocative writing.
Furthermore, while I'm fine with faux-artsy studio fare being forced to compete with indepedent films in the prestige market, when a film as good as Zodiac gets left out of the Oscar race, it tends to leave one with a sour taste in the mouth. The recent success of The Departed and Return of the King notwithstanding, the Oscar continue to show disdain for genre filmmaking. No doubt the high level of craft that distinguishes Coen Brothers films from most indepedent treacle is responsible for Pat G.'s aversion to their latest opus.
And for godsake Pat, would it kill you to sound like you weren't writing completely out of your ass...for once?
I don't believe anyone questioned the considerable craft the Coens displayed in No Country For Old Men. What citics such as Dave Kehr, Jim Hoberman and Jonathan Rosenbaum found disturbing was the shallow glorification of the central serial killer in this work. And I also believe that Pat Graham went to considerable length to praise David Fincher's remarkable craft in Zodiac. I think the difference in tone between these two films should make it clear to you why these critics would prefer the latter to the former.
Thanks.
I agree that this “variant on Murphy’s law” creates an award culture that is out of control, but in defending, maybe, what the Oscars should be, I have no problem with an establishment making a choice to celebrate that year, regardless of what they call that choice (best, favorite). You must admit, there is at least usually some film to celebrate “best cinematography,” “best sound editing,” etc., and so why not have a ceremony to showcase such choices. And if you (or the organization) truly don’t believe there was any worthy choice, then make a statement by choosing none. Of course, this is the awards show of our dreams, but my point is that I see no problem in celebrating the year in film with a glamorous show.
And what does it matter if they choose one (what you criticize as “Best”) or 30? You are selectively judging a particular number of choices, regardless of 1 or 30! In a way, the Oscars are choosing five (nominations), and it would be a better show if they celebrated those five more thoroughly than (I agree with you) choosing the “best.”
You, Pat G, as a critic, are a selector, yet you criticize the Oscars for selecting. Is the word “Best” that bothers you most? I’ll give you that, but you know, Pat G (top critic posing as third-stringer), there will come a day when we the readers will expect more than a “favorite” from you. We’ll want you to step up and judge some films better, and even best, and to know more about which you “haven’t a clue.”
You can’t be that clueless, especially if you claim: “here's what i like, these are the reasons.”
re "best" and its pseudo-"objective" ilk: just following wittgenstein on the 57 varieties of "i liked it"--plus i'd rather do my privileging through descriptive/associative webs than clumsy preemptive assaults (since that's what "best" is, a shortcut to the high ground, treating as settled what begs for demonstration: it's where you wind up, not where you begin--though even then a sign of desperation, that arguments and language have failed ...) * which is why you won't be getting "bests" from me--not anytime soon or unless i'm really in a hurry, at an utter loss for words * a shame film writers can get away with this--also that their readers let them do it ...
I'm truly abashed to be accused of moralising. The three literary characters I feel most akin to, and in my foolish way have sought to understand, are Encolpius, Heathcliff, and HCE, immoralists all. In Earwicker's file of 111 insulting names directed at his character you will not find moralist, though you will find both artist and dirt. I'm honored that you would, even in this small way, liken me to Rosenbaum, but I think he would not be so happy with it. Do you want to wake the sleeping giant?
As it happens, I also like some of the Coens' films, especially Blood Simple, The Hudsucker Proxy, and Fargo. But I reserve the right to remain unimpressed with the dreary parade of heroic and corrupt cops, mythic and perversely charming serial killers, and mobsters, both crazed and paternal, who constitute an inordinate percentage of major characters in what we could laughingly call our national cinema over the last fifty years.
I also enjoy watching the Academy Awards, but mostly for the rare oportunity it affords me to see and hear one such as Robert F. Boyle, the production designer of The Birds and Marnie. These are two films whose visual beauty and strangeness have left an indelible mark on my consciousness and I'm happy to see at least one of the artists responsible for the look of those masterpieces honored.
Thanks for you response.
Pat G -- I have considered the “favorite vs. best” battle often, and I am in complete agreement with your “affection” angle – that is (at least) what “favorites” are. I now make two lists at the end of the year, one for favorites, and the other for pseudo-“objective, which is to say there has to be a difference. Has to, has to, and has to! If I have an affection for, say, DePalma’s “Mission to Mars” (which I do have!), let’s face it, how can I seriously encourage that on any sort of recommended year-end list, unless it is understood that it means something to me personally, or has merely an element of thrill, etc. Such a “favorite” list would lose most of one’s readers, especially those seeking a guide to some of the better artistic experiences at the movies.
Not to dismiss your list reasoning – I love it, I agree with it – but I believe even you are doing more than listing your favs; I can’t help but think there is an element of objectivity, an organic guide that points you towards what’s admirable in film art. I think your “privileging through descriptive/associative webs” is a grand, mysterious process, but it still leads you to distinction! Deciding upon a “best” is not as “preemptive” as you’d think. It doesn’t have to be “a shortcut to the high ground,” though maybe award shows and top-ten lists appear to be just that.
I believe there has to be a “high ground,” and I believe “best,” though banal and crude, is the simplest word to describe that precipice.
Something stops me – as if I would (truly) be doing Arrrttt a disservice – from putting the terrible “Attack of the Clones” and the only slightly better “Revenge of the Sith” on my best-of list, though I couldn’t deny their pull on me (they intoxicated me!), and thus, found a place on my favorite list.
Nothing stopped me from putting “Russian Ark” atop my best-of list.
My point is 1) I believe there is a crucial difference between “favorite” and “best”, and 2) that which distinguishes the two is an objective assessment, and I think it has something to do with admiration, an acquired criteria from which to discern, or, in your case, a process that includes “demonstration,” “arguments,” and “language.”
and frankly i think "objectivity"'s a crock--though of course we all have our reasons and it's "good" (another member of the better/best family) to feel them out, acknowledge what they are, that things feed into other things and films don't stand in isolation * which is what "best," "objectivity," all that privileging terminology, generally connotes--that there's a universal vantage that ALLOWS this * like archimedes, we all have our levers and places to stand from which to move the world--but when the point of "critical" rest changes, so do our evaluations flowing from it
Your question does present a challenge: how do you NOT like what you consider “best?” Yet actually, theoretically, this could occur, but I cannot remember (as I write) when in my own experience. An example may be something like “Triumph of the Will” or Gaspar Noe’s “I Stand Alone,” where the respect for a film’s accomplishments outweighs one’s affection for it (I’ve noticed this struggle often in Rosenbaum’s reviews). Rather a subtler dynamic has occurred quite often, when a favorite hasn’t impressed me as much as a non-favorite, as when (as I expressed before) “Russian Ark” blew me away in 2002, while “Chicago,” “Femme Fatale,” and “25th Hour” each stirred me stronger, yet were (though, maybe, in hindsight, not in the case of the Spike Lee joint), in my judgment, lesser films. That sort of judgment…for me… somehow gives respect to Aaarrrttt. It is a masochistic thrill for me to deny my favorites, say, a top 3 placement when I witness another film reaching higher cinematic ground (yes, I know, and so we come back to “we all have our reasons,” and our own criteria…).
“Best” is that ability to notice another film’s richer accomplishments over a favorite’s identifying power, cause for affection, and, yes, skills. “Best” is respect.
And often my “bests” and “favorites” are one and the same (“Punch-Drunk Love” was such a film), but more often they are different.
I can’t help but to see your point, that this objectivity – what I see as a sort of respect to art – implies “privileging,” yet I find a critic’s struggle to distinguish admirable rather than arrogant; I find it (excuse me) heroic. I feel the masochism I mentioned above a critical trait in this (excuse me) endeavor.
“Best,” for me, is a challenge to, as you put it, privilege “through descriptive/associative webs;” it is not an allowance from a “universal vantage.”
So, Pat G, have any of your favorite movies NOT been good movies? And, have there ever been any movies better than your favorites?
We seek the same thing: distinction in film. You call it “favorite” and make no claims of privilege/talent/Sight, and I call it “best” and claim to at least hope to have the viewing passion, history, and, yes, well, I guess so, some sort of vantage – how can you not (especially you, a bona fide critic!).
I’m going to try to find a movie that I put on my “best” list that – not so much I didn’t like, but rather – was far from being a favorite, or lovable!
I (mostly) liked them all.
“We all have our levers and places to stand from which to move the world.” Your point being: to claim your choices as your own, as they can come from none other, and they can only be favorites, as they are always ultimately what you “like.”
Hard to argue against that.
What did you mean with that last remark: “but when the point of "critical" rest changes, so do our evaluations flowing from it.”
e.g., at the top of my last year's list was lynch's INLAND EMPIRE * now: can ANYONE actually "like" or "love" that movie? ... because like/loving's pretty obviously the last thing it needs or wants from us * but "brilliant"--now there's a valuational marker i can almost embrace: "coruscating," "brittle" (same connotative family--re SURFACES that might easily disappear, fall out of equilibrium, etc), "consciousness in every frame" and what i'd call the "evidence" thereof, all the "resonant" (NB: privileging language, also pretty vacuous, meaning anything you want it to) ambiguity ... throw those place fillers out there and automatically i go goofy * so LIKE doesn't quite do the job ... but still it's a damn sight "better" than BEST
also in this category: hou's THREE TIMES--"liking" seems pretty much beside the point, but everything it does is, well, "fascinating" (another empty marker) and i do "love" THAT--the contrapuntal contrasts, the silent impersonation (like reinhabiting a defunct mind-set), the aleatory aesthetic of the last episode, etc--without necessarily loving IT * still close to a "great" movie though--assuming THAT word has any fixed "objective" function ...
re "point of 'critical' rest changes": from the archimedean example, where you start pretty well determines where you wind up
Re “can ANYONE actually "like" or "love" that movie?”: What ever the stage of affection, a fan has their own issue-driven, taste-laden reasons for gushing over the most distancing/difficult works. Gushing is our right, and we can’t help what stirs us. “Inland Empire” love is possible.
Re “close to a "great" movie though--assuming THAT word has any fixed "objective" function”: But I know what you mean! You hold it in very high regard, as far as its place among all other films, within the international/historical film culture. I get it! ... Those poor orphanic words – great, good, like, best, love – actually work. We should rest, assured.
As for ratings, I like the star (or whatever) system, as long as there is definition (Christgau, etc.). I like the excitement of anticipating what valuational marker a critic has categorized a film (followed by a read of their reasoning and demonstration). The only requirement should be some sort of context. But then again, once you know the writer, you’ll have the context.
Re “do "love" THAT… without necessarily loving IT”: How much of THAT do you need before you love IT? I have used a percentage judgment before (3rd quarter is amazing; those segments murder, while others don’t; characters pop, but theme is trite) to tally a film’s rating, or just my own valuational categorization. Did I love “Zodiac,” or did I just love its unrestrained length, delusional/endless/obsessive investigating, shifting character focus, and overall disregard for a neat and tidy narrative time frame. But I know I loved “Mulholland Drive;” I loved IT.