I just came across this piece in The Guardian discussing what the author considers "the farce" that is The Oscars. While I don't necessarily agree with all of her opinions, I was mainly interested in her thoughts on the two best films in the Best Picture race, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, and what may keep Blood from winning:
"But what really hits you in the solar plexus is the stuff that surrounds him. The film's extended, word-free opening; its adoring yet fearful odes to physical labour; its minimalist cast, and its even more minimalist sets; its slow hand; its use of distance shots and close-ups, and very little in between; its queasy, questing score. Most amazing of all, given the times in which we live, is its demonically unmerciful demolition of America's two great bedrocks: capitalism and faith. I hear that the box office isn't great in the US, and no wonder: for some, watching this must be akin to being violently beaten by a beloved parent. It's this last thought, I suppose, that makes me believe that possibility - of its losing to No Country... - could become actuality at the Oscar ceremony tonight."
To me, that sounds like a bit of Sobchack's generic catharsis, or at least its denial, inasmuch as the audience cannot separate themselves from what they see on screen, Daniel Plainview more of an indictment of our society, a reflection of our own faults, than a character through whom we can vicariously revel in transgressive activity. But isn't the same true for No Country, with its controversial ending, a perfect example of playing with genre conventions and expectations, denying the audience any sense of a Classical, "happily ever after" ending?
We'll see tonight. Here's the article:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/oscars2008/story/0,,2259425,00.html
1 comment:
I've heard "Blood" described by critics as "audience punishing," which I think is a very strangely worded term, but I definitely see what you and the author are saying here. The film is also like 2h45m which really isn't historically out of the ordinary in the Best Picture category, but win you consider the idea of this particular film being excruciating to some audiences, that's definitely a long time.
I really enjoyed it though, and I know you did as well because we've talked about it. But I think there's merit to these points.
I also agree on "No Country" which certainly stretches genre conventions, and also traditional plot structures when you consider the arc of Brolin's character. I would have worded that more explicitly, but I didn't want to make this comment a spoiler.
I'd also like to point out that neither of these films have particularly amazing mainstream appeal. Nine of the last ten best picture winners (Jim's favorite, Crash, being the exception) grossed well over $100m at the domestic box office. "No Country" is a lot closer than "Blood," but neither could even hope to get there even with increased interest after an Oscar win.
Then there is the added violence factor. I lot of older people, and the Academy they skew old, can't handle it. So "No Country" has a lot to overcome, even though it seems like a far and a way favorite. I'm definitely going to pick it though. My grandparents are old, and 50% of them (my grandpa) really liked it...
Post a Comment