Moviefone[/caption]It’s been a while since my last post, I know. I originally started this blog to voice my thoughts and opinions on various subjects, but seeing how a majority of my posts have been film related so far, I’ve decided to make film the primary focus of this blog. I’ll make posts pertaining to other subjects and matters in the future if I can express my thoughts on them thoughtfully and coherently.
On the subject of film, the 87th Academy Awards (aka the Oscars) were held back in February and it was a mediocre ceremony from what I’ve heard. I only saw a few clips from the ceremony online afterwards – just like every year. I usually work when the Oscars are on TV, so I never get to catch them live, but it’s not like I’m that invested in them in the first place. It’s nice to see worthy films and people involved in the making of them win awards, but there’s way too much focus on vanity and superficiality anymore. Does there really need to be all these “best & worst dressed” lists after the ceremony? Do we need programming before the already long ceremony that’s only purpose is to address what people are wearing? I know she’s wearing a dress, I can clearly see that. Who cares if you think it’s not as great as the dress of another actress attending the ceremony? This brings me to the point I’d like to make against the Oscars as a whole: It’s all subjective!
In general, awards are always going to have some degree of subjectivity. The Oscars are no exception to this because the voting panel consists of a bunch of old white dudes, some who haven’t seen the films nominated. They don’t exactly speak for the entire movie going public, do they? With that being said, I was glad to see a hardworking actor like J.K. Simmons win best supporting actor for “Whiplash” and “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)” win in several categories including best picture. Michael Keaton didn’t win best actor for his performance as the film’s protagonist, Riggan Thompson to the surprise and disappointment of almost everybody, but at the end of the day, all it is a gold statue of a naked man. I admit to be kind of disappointed that he didn’t win because I’m a huge fan of Keaton, but his performance was phenomenal and will still be remembered years from now; there doesn’t need to be an Oscar as a sole reminder of that. Eddie Redmayne’s performance as Stephen Hawking in “The Theory of Everything” would’ve been remembered too had he lost best actor to Keaton. My point is that what needs to be recognized and respected is the hard work and dedication that actors and crew alike put into making a film. Just because “Birdman” won best picture over “Boyhood” doesn’t objectively make it a better film, both films are phenomenal and the result of hard work and passion of those involved in making them. The Oscars are essentially just extra recognition and Hollywood patting itself on the back; it’s not worth it to get all bent out of shape about who wins and who doesn’t and what wins and what doesn’t – just enjoy and appreciate the art of film.
Speaking of the art of the film, a sizeable chunk of the filmmaking community is not fond of superhero films and would argue that they’re not art. Dan Gilroy, the director of “Nightcrawler” for example is stuck up and dismissive towards the “tsunami of superhero films”. He has a point in regards to Hollywood being dominated by superhero films, but it’s not like superhero films should be looked down upon. Yes, there have been bad superhero films, but there have been a lot of awesome superhero films. Hell, I argue that there have been more awesome superhero films than bad ones. Just look at 2014, we got the following: “Guardians of the Galaxy”, “X-Men: Days of Future Past” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”, three awesome superhero films (commercially AND critical hits too) that made up for one bad superhero film, “The Disappointing Spider”…I mean, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Do the math: 75% of superhero films being awesome every year still give them reason to be respected and not scorned. James Gunn, director of “Guardians of the Galaxy” responded to the criticism of superhero films in a recent Facebook post, and pointed out that people like him who work on superhero films do so with just as much heart and passion as those who make non-superhero films. I agree entirely, the characters in superhero films have character arcs and obstacles to overcome, allowing us to relate to them and sympathize with them. The Marvel Cinematic Universe is proof of just how successful superhero films can be both commercially and creatively speaking. If Gunn can make a film where we can sympathize with a talking squirrel and tree, there are more great things to come out of the superhero genre. Maybe there’ll be more award recognition besides in the technological categories for these films in the future, but as I’ve said before, just appreciate these films for artistic reasons.
To wrap it up, I’d just like to point out that “Birdman” is a quasi-superhero film, and by going off of that you can kind of argue that a superhero film won best picture this year! That’s a nice bird, man!
[embed]https://youtu.be/uJfLoE6hanc[/embed]
No comments:
Post a Comment