A Few Words on the Academy

This year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences selected 'The King's Speech' as the best film of 2010. I have been outspoken in my support for 'The Social Network', so I was disappointed in the decision. In this post, I will discuss why I think the Academy made a mistake this year. Furthermore, I will examine other years in which the Academy has made less than prudent decisions as a basis to argue that the Academy's final judgment should hardly be considered trustworthy.

The King's Speech
This film apparently made people 'feel.' Maybe it was because I was stone cold sober and lucid, but I didn't catch the real emotional bang this film has supposedly given so many others. The film is sold as a sort of biopic, focusing on one aspect of King George's life. What the film doesn't tell us is that a big chunk of the film - how King George received treatment for his speech problem - was completely made up by David Seidler, who wrote the screenplay. He based the interactions between Lional Logue and King George on his own experiences with a speech impediment. While this creates an interesting forum for framing speech therapy, in might not be the most appropriate way to talk about history. Each of the characters, furthermore, are fairly one-dimensional. The film was supposed to bring royal characters down to earth. But, at the end of the film, the Royal characters still acted in a stereotypically Royal fashion. In reality, the way the characters were portrayed were no different than any typical British costume drama. So, why was this one so great? In my opinion, the saving grace for 'The King's Speech' was the acting. Colin Firth deserved his Oscar. Geoffrey Rush arguably deserved it more than Christian Bale. Helena Bonham Carter played her role well, but it was a small role with little screen time that probably wasn't really worthy of Oscar attention. The rest of the ensemble fell into place the way they should have. We've seen people play the royal family before. And it's all the same. But, in reality, the film was lacking in real substance. It was slow moving, and boring for the most part. The setting was all the same colour. This was probably intentional, but it didn't help compensate for the slow moving nature of the film. I wasn't moved. For the most part, I was uncomfortable having to be in the same room as someone with such an awful speech problem. I would give the film a B.

The Social Network
I have this film rated below three other superb films - 'Black Swan', 'Toy Story 3', and 'Inception'. All three were nominated for Best Picture. All three were equally deserving as 'The Social Network'. I was pulling for this particular film to win. Partially because I thought it would have the best chance against 'The King's Speech', and partially because it really does speak to all people in the context of the current generation. 'The Social Network' is not just a movie about Facebook, just as 'The Dark Knight' was not simply a movie about Batman. 'The Social Network' examines themes to which even those without Facebook profiles can relate - Greed, betrayal, ambition, fairness, just to name a few. Is Mark Zuckerberg supposed to be a sympathetic character? I didn't find him to be one. What kind of lessons can we learn about the Facebook story? Does success come at a price? Is it worth it to stab your only friend in the back in order to get ahead in life? Although not everyone is dealing with a multi-billion dollar company, the themes examined in 'The Social Network' are not specific to that particular segment of society. They are universal. Furthermore, because the film takes place within the setting of Facebook, it offers a realistic view of how the world has been affected by something that started off as a drunken college experiment. Ideas can change the world. And in a fast-changing world like the world today, this message is important for EVERYONE. The film was assembled beautifully. The nearly flawless screenplay, combined with a somber, yet dramatic score, precise editing, and a realistic point of view, should have made this a no-brainer. The Academy screwed up big time. This film, in addition to the three awards it won, should have picked up awards for Best Picture and Best Director for David Fincher.

But this is not the firs time the Academy has screwed up. Let's take a look at some obvious examples:

2008 - 'Slumdog Millionaire'
First of all, I'm not going to get up in arms about this film winning. I am more angry that other films were not considered. 2008 was one of the best years in film, yet, the Academy insisted on putting up rather lackluster films to the plate, including 'Frost/Nixon', 'Milk', and 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'. The only film nominated that year that I found outstanding was 'The Reader'. 'Slumdog' was an interesting flick. It combined a Bollywood setting with Danny Boyle's lens. I do not deny that he deserved the Best Director prize. He did. But there were other films this year that should have been competing against Boyle's film for 'Best Picture', among them Chris Nolan's 'The Dark Knight', Clint Eastwood's 'Changelling', or 'Gran Torino', Sam Mendes' 'Revolutionary Road', and John Patrick Shanley's film adaptation of his play 'Doubt'.

2006 - 'The Departed'
This was an off year, but the only reason this film won was because the Academy made this their prime opportunity to bury the criticism of never having given Martin Scorsese an Oscar. 'The Departed', while far from being a bomb, was further from being Scorsese's best effort. Who deserved it more: 'Iwo Jima kara no Tegami' (This surely didn't win because it would be the second time in three years that Eastwood would have beaten Scorsese), 'Little Miss Sunshine', 'Little Children'.

2000 - 'Gladiator'
Yes, It's an epic story. Yes, it was action-packed and exciting like Bravehart (which is another lousy year in of itself). But was it really as good as hard-hitting 'Traffic'? Was it really as moving as 'Almost Famous'? Was it really as action-packed, hard-hitting, and moving as 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'? Very simply - No.

And that's only three years. There are more, certainly. But, the final judgment is that the Academy is often flawed. 'The King's Speech' won not because it was so good, but because the Weinstein company finally found enough money and leverage to coerce voters into picking it as their top choice. Critics agree. They preferred 'The Social Network'. But one the guilds gave out their awards, it was clear that the power of Weinstein bucks placed an inferior film to the top. What a shame!