When it comes to the Oscars, I may as well have the words LOVE and HATE tattooed across my knuckles, like Robert Mitchum in "The Night of the Hunter."
Each year the nominees and eventual winners seem to have less impact than before. As one's cinematic taste evolves, there is less need to seek the approval of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for guidance toward what they deem the best movies and performances of the year.
However, the satisfaction is still there when a film or filmmaker that I admire is recognized. Not for my own validation, but for the genuine thrill of seeing a deserving artist celebrated on Hollywood's biggest night. It's like seeing your team win the Super Bowl, or at least make it to the big game.
Take the nominations for best director this year, which represent some of the finer talents working in the medium today. With one exception, this crop contains some of the best, most exciting filmmakers of their generation: Darren Aronofsky ("Black Swan"), David Fincher ("The Social Network"), David O. Russell ("The Fighter") and, of course, the Coen brothers ("True Grit"). The Coens have their Best Picture and Best Director Oscars already (for "No Country for Old Men"), and their place in the pantheon of great filmmakers was carved in stone long ago. So their nomination is akin to Quentin Tarantino's for "Inglourious Basterds" last year: It's no longer a big deal when their greatness is recognized every time they hit a home run. Now it's just expected.
With "Black Swan," though, Aronofsky returned to what he does best: subjective filmmaking. In his 2008 film, "The Wrestler," Aronofsky switched to a more objective approach, as we simply observed Mickey Rourke's title character in the real world -- with only one moment where we saw things from the Ram's point of view. In "Black Swan," the audience is placed firmly inside the head of Natalie Portman's ambitious ballerina Nina. Since Nina is going insane, we see a distorted perception of her world, where it's often difficult to delineate between fantasy and reality. Aronofsky's vision was strong, and he clearly revels in messing with the audience, especially with all that reflective mirror imagery, aural manipulation (listen for all the bird sound effects weaved through the soundtrack) and subliminal shots.
All this is much closer to Aronofsky's other great, challenging films like "Pi," "Requiem for a Dream" and "The Fountain." It's Aronofsky's directorial style, telling the story in the manner of a horror film, that makes "Black Swan" the brilliant piece of work that it is. The fact that the Academy recognized the film, certainly not typical Oscar fare, is cause for celebration.
Similarly, Fincher's work on "The Social Network" is far more deserving of Oscar love than his last film, "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," for which he also received a nomination. The combination of Fincher's focused direction, in which he toned down his usual visual pyrotechnics (except for the masterful and hilarious rowing scene) and writer Aaron Sorkin's brilliant script made for one of the more dynamic major Hollywood entertainments in recent memory.
"Network" joins Fincher's other masterworks, "Seven," "Fight Club" and "Zodiac." His other movies -- "Alien 3," "The Game," "Panic Room" and "Button" -- have moments of brilliance, but all fail to cohere into fully realized great films. But one need look no further than the opening scene of "The Social Network," which beautifully sets up the story, for signs of his prowess with actors, theme and narrative. Jesse Eisenberg and Mara Rooney's back-and-forth dialogue would have taken twice as long in the hands of most other filmmakers.
David O. Russell's path to his first Oscar nomination also saw him take a departure. "The Fighter" feels more workmanlike in its approach than his previous film, "I Heart Huckabees." While "The Fighter" is not the first film that springs to mind to show off Russell's talents behind the camera ("Huckabees," "Three Kings" and "Flirting With Disaster" are more daring and emblematic of his style and abilities), it does show a maturity in his growth as a storyteller. It's a great example of a director toning down his sometimes abrasive style in service of the film.
Among all this talent, Tom Hooper, without the same breadth of interesting film work yet to his credit (he did make "The Damned United" in 2009 and a lot of British TV before that), stands out like a sober police officer on "The Wire." The excitement for Hooper's "The King's Speech" is understandable. It's well made. But it feels like a gussied-up version of an old-fashioned crowd-pleaser; the kind of well-acted Oscar bait that used to win Best Picture almost all the time, especially in the '90s.
The film's bold, classy visual style (Danny Cohen's cinematography is deservedly nominated) and strong acting make an otherwise rather stuffy biopic/costume drama come to life in a fresh way -- but Hooper's direction is merely adequate. He's not doing anything exciting or particularly fresh. Take his use of Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A Major: Allegretto to score the climactic moment. It works well, but that beautiful piece of music has been done to death, in "The Fall," "The Saddest Music in the World," "Knowing" and "The Darjeeling Limited," to name a few.
Had Hooper been swapped with the far more deserving Christopher Nolan for "Inception," this year would go down in history as having one of the most impressive Best Director lineups of all time. Though Nolan was at least recognized for Original Screenplay and Best Picture, his directorial snub next to Hooper's nomination is baffling.
With "Inception," Nolan pulled off the rarest of feats in modern blockbuster cinema: an original film with lots of ideas that balances smarts with excitement. It's fun without making you feel stupid for enjoying it. Nolan is now capable of selling a film on his name alone. That's not enough for a Best Director nomination? Time will tell who will have more lasting impact, but right now, Nolan compared with Hooper is like the varsity team scrimmaging against the junior varsity. It's just an unfair matchup, really.
Nolan, Fincher, Aronofsky, Russell. These four directors, along with a few others who have been nominated in recent years -- Quentin Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson ("There Will Be Blood") and Danny Boyle ("Slumdog Millionaire," "127 Hours") -- are of a filmmaking generation that came of age in the '90s and has consistently put out daring, sophisticated and exciting work, with an obvious affection for film history. They haven't made a lot of films yet, but as they continue to hone their craft and pursue projects that push their creativity and audience expectations, it's safe to say they'll go down as the best of their time. (Not including foreign filmmakers, which is a big caveat.)
Perhaps the Oscars are getting better. Or at least they're starting to honor filmmakers I always imagined and hoped, right from the beginning, would be recognized as the best. That excitement for the awards is back this year -- at least in the director category. My LOVE fist is pumping in the air, and will continue to do so after the awards are done.
Unless Tom Hooper wins. In that case, the fist of HATE may punch a hole in the wall.
83RD ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS
- When: 7 p.m. Sun 2/27
- Where: ABC (Ch. 5)
- Web: oscars.com
Related links
