As I began Oscar weekend, I spoke with a friend (Lily Atonio) about her thoughts on the Academy Awards approaching. She noticed a very interesting similarity: All the best picture nominees have some aspect of nostalgia built into them. Period pieces like WAR HORSE, MIDNIGHT IN PARIS, THE HELP, MONEYBALL THE TREE OF LIFE, and of course the period piece devoted to the love of classic hollywood cinema, THE ARTIST. All these films paid tribute to eras that define us today. And films like THE DESCENDANTS, EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE, and HUGO all lean on the nostalgia factor of families that are lost.
Huh.
Well I suppose that has to do with the still-bad economic times and the wishing for better days of eras passed.
With nostalgia as the key theme for the best picture nominees, I suppose it makes sense that the Academy Awards themselves fit this theme. But is that really for the best?
The awards show started off with host Billy Crystal (who is returning to the Oscars for the ninth time) infusing himself in all the best picture nominee's promo spots. And so the nostalgia begins. Within the evening there were at least four separate non-award segments that dealt with nostalgia. They are as follows:
1) The Initial Retrospective: This is to be expected. A fast-cutting montage of major landmark films implies that tonight's winners will enter the garden, pass gilded gate into Oscar history. The films included were: Titanic, Forrest Gump, Jaws, Star Wars, Apollo 13, Indiana Jones, The Godfather, Avatar, The Princess Bride, The Hangover (WHAT??), Twilight (DOUBLE WHAT????). This was to be expected and reminds us all of the passion behind these films that have touched us. Most importantly, it reminds us the importance of the Academy Awards to our culture and our lives.
2) The Stars Talk Retrospective: This was definitely interesting though unexpected. Again, another moment where the academy plays on the idea of of nostalgia. The stars are interviewed and answer questions like, "What makes a great film?" and, "What was the first film you saw?" These are interesting tidbits and we all know that actors can talk about their art for ever (and therefore SOMETHING good will come of of the interviews) but was it heavy handed? Did we really need to go back a second time to hear more? Is this why we care about the Oscars? I do not know the answers to these questions, but I do wonder if anyone asked them at the round table discussion when this idea came up. Again, nostalgia for the win.
3) The Wizard of Oz Focus Group Retrospective: Again, the Academy rests on the films of the past to provide entertainment for the present. I completely agree that THE WIZARD OF OZ is a phenomenal film and that focus groups are hilarious. However, again we sat through ANOTHER nostalgia-driven segment. Is this relevant? Did they feel the current films are not up to snuff of the past greats so they had to rely on the tried-and-true? Are they just trying to advertise these films to get a younger audience to see them again or for the first time? Again, who knows.
4) The Cirque du Soleil Retrospective: It's sorta funny. Here they are presenting a filmed version of a stage-performance to indicate the importance of the film and cinema experience. Don't get me wrong, Cirque du Soleil does amazing work that is creative, innovative, and jaw-dropping. This was an interesting add to the show, I agree. But, is this the best way to show the experience of sitting in a theatre? Should it have been filmed better (ie more cameras, closer views, and overall better editing/flow?). When you think of presenting the experience of watching a film, do you think acrobatics? It was a stunning spectacle. But that is what it was, a spectacle. Purely for entertainment for sure. And not a way to describe the cinematic experience. Though I do think it was a welcome addition to the otherwise dreary nostalgia segments. Overall, good job, Cirque. But I would have loved to see their interpretation of the best picture nominees as they always seem to work best with story.
Lastly, Billy Crystal himself was laden with nostalgia for the whole evening. With quips like, "I prefer the big screen," as he denounces mobile phone movie watching, "...my ipad." Here he is looking down on mobile devices and alternative ways to watch movies. What he doesn't elude to is the fact that this the is the future of film. And he should get on board so he doesn't get left behind. Considering the fact that film has stuck with us for so long (the first Oscars were in 1929), is very impressive. But it's a adapt or die sort of world we live in. And film is no exception. So, Billy, if you want a job in the future, you'd best get on board with alternative platforms for viewing.
And the second comment Billy made about the shifts in the industry was his comment about how back in the day films were "actually made on film." This another dig at the changing times of the industry. And yes, I do understand the reluctance to change to digital (film is more beautiful, more dynamic, and more lush). But the great thing about digital is that it is the great equalizer (hello and welcome to the You Tube generation). We all have access to filmmaking tools and all can be the next Scorsese. But, Billy needs to understand that this is not the great demise of film, but rather the great horizon of a new enterprise. Because just like Billy himself said, "Nothing takes the sting out of these tough economic times like watching a bunch of millionaires giving golden statues to each other" - Hollywood is made and paid for by Hollywood. Yes, the shift from film to digital will be difficult but will make the film
industry much more viable for the long haul.
Finally, anyone really surprised to hear THE ARTIST win best picture with all this nostalgia going on? I mean it is the king of all nostalgia films as it writes a love letter to Hollywood.
Overall:
Bill Crystal as Host: Great singing/dancing, but lacked scope as he played only on the nostalgia theme.
The winners: expected, but satisfying.
LIKE US ON FACEBOOK HERE!
Check out Ryan Seacrest and The Dictator Here! (hilarious antics!)
I agree with your nostalgia comment completely. Why does Hollywood keep making sequels and reprise old movies?? Doesn't anyone write anything new and innovative? They do but few and far between. Maybe the young writers will free up the ideas and improve the medium.
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems that in these lean economic years, the film industry (and many industries in general) find that they must rely on the tried-and-true to get them thru the year. While this may seem acceptable in business, the film industry's art suffers. So, with a mask of "nostalgia" (*ahem!* Titanic in 3D coming soon anyone??), the film industry attempts to get some money without venturing too far into the unknown. On the flipside, we as the consumers are demanding (through our dollars, oh how they speak!) for films to be promoted with trailers that practically spell out the entire story of the film. We, as consumers, want to know what the film will be prior to putting our $10-20 down. It works both ways, but the artistic side of the community (and the Academy that deems films "artistic" and "not artistic") should propel and support more innovative work without looking so much to the past.
ReplyDelete-Laura
(the author)
http://cuckookachooanartsreview.blogspot.com
"Like" us on Facebook!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cuckoo-Ka-Choo-An-Arts-Review/313635618693734