I watched the Oscars the other night, and I was greatly disappointed that The Dark Knight did not even receive a nomination for Best Picture. The Academy has determined that there are certain qualities a movie must have in order for it to qualify for Best Picture, which I would place under the blanket term "artsiness." It must have "good directing," and "good editing," and "good acting," and a "good soundtrack." Oh, and it also must have no basis in action whatsoever.
The Dark Knight was 2008's Best Picture.
I only watched two of this year's candidates, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire. Of the two, my personal preference was the former. Brad Pitt's acting was very good, the plot was interesting and quirky, if unnecessarily verbose, and the effects were also impressive. The latter was a pretty good movie: a "rags to riches," coming of age, and romance story all rolled into one cohesive ball, set against the backdrop of the TV show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" I have to say that the acting, especially by the young children in the cast, was quite good. The plot itself was good, and if it was accurate, it was a rather informative picture of the impoverished in India.
(Spoiler Warning: plot details follow.)
Yes, Slumdog Millionaire was a good movie. However, I would not go so far as to call it a stellar movie. I would give it about 75 on a scale of 100 points. I did not find it altogether very compelling. The concept, from what I heard prior to viewing, sounded like it had great potential. A boy wins big on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," and is subsequently accused of cheating; the movie shows how it is he came to know the answers to the questions. That description is only partly accurate.
A good portion of the flashbacks also deals with the main character, Jamal, searching for his childhood-companion-turned-love-interest Latika, as well as his relationship with his (later in life) estranged brother Salim. What I quickly discovered was that the plot was not anything terribly original, nor was it altogether compelling or plausible. Sure, it's kind of cute and fuzzy to call it fate, but the way the love story and the answers to the game show questions fell together very conveniently was quite transparent. The ending was predictably happy (not that it was a bad ending, just visible from half an hour away). Salim ended up redeeming himself as well, after some of the less respectable acts he committed. There was a bit of suspense towards the end, as the movie began before Jamal had actually won the entire sum of money possible from the game show. Altogether, it was a pretty decent movie, but the intense amount of hype that preceded my viewing left me disappointed. I did enjoy the dance number at the very end, although it was slightly incongruous with the rest of the movie. Apparently it's an Indian thing.
Now, I claim that The Dark Knight deserved the Best Picture award over Slumdog Millionaire, because The Dark Knight was a phenomenal movie, while Slumdog Millionaire was only a decent movie. First of all, having a low budget should not give any movie any kind of additional merit in regards to its quality or worthiness to win. Because The Dark Knight had a greater budget, it was capable of having a better team, better effects, and a more experienced cast. All these things give a movie a not unfair advantage over a movie with a lower budget.
That said, both the cinematographic and literary/thematic elements of The Dark Knight were superior. And there were solid thematic elements in that movie. It had a romantic subplot that tied heavily into the main plot. It had great characters. Bruce Wayne/Batman was an icon of heroism, giving up what he wanted for what he though would better serve the people. Harvey Dent was an idealist, a good-hearted man who refused to compromise on his vision of a better world. Yet he also became a model of the fallible man, who has a weakness to be exploited and can become corrupted and fallen. The Joker was an embodiment of chaos and evil, an example of the selfishness of a solitary person and the results of living in a world composed of such individuals. He sought to bring to ruin order and justice as we know it, and "prove" that the hearts and souls of everyone are truly black.
While perhaps exaggerated, these are three very realistic characters. The theme of fall and redemption, corruption and purity, and mercy towards those who may not deserve or appreciate it was heavy in all parts of the film, and I found that it resonated within me more than any movie I've seen in a while. Batman continued to protect a city that feared and hated him, even though it meant giving up a future with a girl he loved. The Joker was proven wrong when even a boat full of convicted and hardened criminals refused to blow up another boat; conversely, the boat of supposedly "innocent" people refused to condemn those criminals to death simply to save themselves. In the end, Batman took the fall for the atrocious acts of Harvey Dent after becoming Two-Face, in order that the people could have hope for a brighter future. And these are only the main points. The list goes on.
In short, it was a movie laden with instances of compassion, honor, heroism, and love (not romance, but love). It was a classic story of good versus evil, yet on so many levels and in different ways as to render it intensely meaningful. You should note that none of this takes into account the movie's awesome action sequences, great special effects, and otherwise super hero coolness. And it's certainly not as though the acting was bad, either. This is clear from Heath Ledger's Best Supporting Actor award, though he was by no means the only good actor in the film.
And yet, all these factors are overlooked because it is a "comic book" or "super hero" or "action" movie. Some of the deepest movie material is overlooked on the basis of a preconceived notion that comic books, their characters, and their stories are somehow too shallow to be considered worthy of the Academy's attention. It's just like that post Andrew Clark wrote about comic books recently (http://mythicether.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-defense-of-comics.html) which was part of the motivation behind this post. The Academy, in its supposed artistic enlightenment, has failed, has passed over some of the greatest art to have had a place on the movie screen in years.
What a shame.
The Dark Knight was 2008's Best Picture.
I only watched two of this year's candidates, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Slumdog Millionaire. Of the two, my personal preference was the former. Brad Pitt's acting was very good, the plot was interesting and quirky, if unnecessarily verbose, and the effects were also impressive. The latter was a pretty good movie: a "rags to riches," coming of age, and romance story all rolled into one cohesive ball, set against the backdrop of the TV show "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" I have to say that the acting, especially by the young children in the cast, was quite good. The plot itself was good, and if it was accurate, it was a rather informative picture of the impoverished in India.
(Spoiler Warning: plot details follow.)
Yes, Slumdog Millionaire was a good movie. However, I would not go so far as to call it a stellar movie. I would give it about 75 on a scale of 100 points. I did not find it altogether very compelling. The concept, from what I heard prior to viewing, sounded like it had great potential. A boy wins big on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire," and is subsequently accused of cheating; the movie shows how it is he came to know the answers to the questions. That description is only partly accurate.
A good portion of the flashbacks also deals with the main character, Jamal, searching for his childhood-companion-turned-love-interest Latika, as well as his relationship with his (later in life) estranged brother Salim. What I quickly discovered was that the plot was not anything terribly original, nor was it altogether compelling or plausible. Sure, it's kind of cute and fuzzy to call it fate, but the way the love story and the answers to the game show questions fell together very conveniently was quite transparent. The ending was predictably happy (not that it was a bad ending, just visible from half an hour away). Salim ended up redeeming himself as well, after some of the less respectable acts he committed. There was a bit of suspense towards the end, as the movie began before Jamal had actually won the entire sum of money possible from the game show. Altogether, it was a pretty decent movie, but the intense amount of hype that preceded my viewing left me disappointed. I did enjoy the dance number at the very end, although it was slightly incongruous with the rest of the movie. Apparently it's an Indian thing.
Now, I claim that The Dark Knight deserved the Best Picture award over Slumdog Millionaire, because The Dark Knight was a phenomenal movie, while Slumdog Millionaire was only a decent movie. First of all, having a low budget should not give any movie any kind of additional merit in regards to its quality or worthiness to win. Because The Dark Knight had a greater budget, it was capable of having a better team, better effects, and a more experienced cast. All these things give a movie a not unfair advantage over a movie with a lower budget.
That said, both the cinematographic and literary/thematic elements of The Dark Knight were superior. And there were solid thematic elements in that movie. It had a romantic subplot that tied heavily into the main plot. It had great characters. Bruce Wayne/Batman was an icon of heroism, giving up what he wanted for what he though would better serve the people. Harvey Dent was an idealist, a good-hearted man who refused to compromise on his vision of a better world. Yet he also became a model of the fallible man, who has a weakness to be exploited and can become corrupted and fallen. The Joker was an embodiment of chaos and evil, an example of the selfishness of a solitary person and the results of living in a world composed of such individuals. He sought to bring to ruin order and justice as we know it, and "prove" that the hearts and souls of everyone are truly black.
While perhaps exaggerated, these are three very realistic characters. The theme of fall and redemption, corruption and purity, and mercy towards those who may not deserve or appreciate it was heavy in all parts of the film, and I found that it resonated within me more than any movie I've seen in a while. Batman continued to protect a city that feared and hated him, even though it meant giving up a future with a girl he loved. The Joker was proven wrong when even a boat full of convicted and hardened criminals refused to blow up another boat; conversely, the boat of supposedly "innocent" people refused to condemn those criminals to death simply to save themselves. In the end, Batman took the fall for the atrocious acts of Harvey Dent after becoming Two-Face, in order that the people could have hope for a brighter future. And these are only the main points. The list goes on.
In short, it was a movie laden with instances of compassion, honor, heroism, and love (not romance, but love). It was a classic story of good versus evil, yet on so many levels and in different ways as to render it intensely meaningful. You should note that none of this takes into account the movie's awesome action sequences, great special effects, and otherwise super hero coolness. And it's certainly not as though the acting was bad, either. This is clear from Heath Ledger's Best Supporting Actor award, though he was by no means the only good actor in the film.
And yet, all these factors are overlooked because it is a "comic book" or "super hero" or "action" movie. Some of the deepest movie material is overlooked on the basis of a preconceived notion that comic books, their characters, and their stories are somehow too shallow to be considered worthy of the Academy's attention. It's just like that post Andrew Clark wrote about comic books recently (http://mythicether.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-defense-of-comics.html) which was part of the motivation behind this post. The Academy, in its supposed artistic enlightenment, has failed, has passed over some of the greatest art to have had a place on the movie screen in years.
What a shame.
1 comment:
I agree completely. The level of depth in The Dark Knight has not been reached in a movie in a very long time. Unfortunately, it is that very "super-hero coolness" element of which you wrote that kept it from the academy's attention. Maybe someday a comic book movie will take the best picture award, but I doubt it.
Thanks for the props.
Post a Comment