On THE BUTLER, black film, and the critical mind

Just today, one of my favorite film bloggers, Sasha Stone of Awards Daily, posted a deeply loving defense of LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER (which is the last time I'll be referring to it as such, because of the ridiculously pointless recent controversy over its original title, sans the director's name). Though I have read only a couple of relatively kind reviews, I have already gathered it's a movie that critics aren't going to get overly enthused about (however, there are raves for Oprah Winfrey's supporting performance, and for Forrest Whitaker's lead--and when has he not satisfied in anything?). And, though I have not seen it yet, I can understand this. For me, it just doesn't look that GREAT, although I am perfectly willing to admit it might be entertaining, and informative to some (most especially young viewers), and this is enough, is it not? Sasha's certainly right on point in her comments here. In the world of Oscar blogging, though--the world that Sasha Stone inhabits--we're at least ideally looking for the great, though we know, at least half of the time, the Oscars aren't anywhere near recognizing the greatest films of the year (that said, even many Oscar blogs don't come close to recognizing those films that deserve to be hailed). Yet, also, sometimes in their shunning of a certain movie, The Oscars get it correct (and, again, they more often get it wrong). I'm dunno what's gonna happen with THE BUTLER--as with all movies, I'm still hoping that it's terrific--but I do have some thoughts about the possibilities.

One thing that did kind of rub me the wrong way about Sasha Stone's piece (and perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I think it's pretty obvious) was the notion that anyone who doesn't like THE BUTLER just doesn't like black film, or at least doesn't understand it, or its worth. And that those who do not are unjust film critics that should really start trying to make their own films rather than writing about other people's films. While I recognize that there are maybe MANY film critics out there who aren't as educated as some, this idea kind of erases the entire art form of film criticism, and it doesn't even take into account that, while book critics can easily write books, and music critics can easily play music, and food critics can easily cook, it's not as equally easy (even in this more democratic film age) to sit down and just make your own film. Film is radically different from other art forms in the sense that a film can rarely be made by one sole person; it requires collaboration, and by definition, collaboration goes against the idea of  "one person, one vision."  It's really this aspect of the article that got my ire up.

Anyway, I would advise you to read the article. And then I would council you to take a look at the trailer, then read my words, and come to your own conclusions, most preferably after seeing the film itself:



Here is my response, posted originally online at AWARDS DAILY: 

Some thoughts:

1) It’s true there are a lot of bad critics, or bloggers, or whatever you wanna call ‘em, out there.  On FILMICABILITY, I really try, in my writing, to discuss mainly the films I love, because I prefer talking positively about films over tearing down things that are just not my cup of tea–and that’s really how I feel about most movies I don’t like, or even despise: that there might be something there for someone, but perhaps not for me. However, on the podcast I do, when I do discuss something a film I don’t like, or one that I like but has problems, I do tend to be quite blunt. And I do try and suggest ways the film could have been improved (if I care, that is). Nothing wrong with that; it’s a form of expressing exactly what’s wrong with a picture. You’re correct, Sasha, in saying that some film commentators need to get up off their butts and direct or participate in the making of movies; doing so DOES sharpen one’s critical senses. I know this from having made my own films, TV shows, having programmed a film festival, and having worked on other people’s films (mainly as an actor and editor). But I don’t think filmmaking experience is absolutely necessary for the critical line of work–some commentators have just decided to be writers about film, and this is okay; this is no reason we should denigrate their opinions. The real question is, are their opinions (1) intelligently and fairly arrived at, (2) interestingly expressed, and (3) informed in all aspects. This is where a few (like you, Sasha) shine, and where many fall.

2) I’ve had discussions with a fellow critic at the NYFF, where we talked about the surly manner most film critics display. We characterized it as them sitting in their theater seat, before the movie, with their arms crossed, and sternly saying “Okay, impress me, genius!” They watch movies with a chip on their shoulder. Where my friend and I, we said that we go into every movie expecting something great, and only when and if things begin to turn for the worst do our judgment centers kick in. I think these other critics are just ready to be mean, because that’s what the internet has become–a mean place. I guess it’s more fun for some to write a negative review, and to make fun of something. I don’t get it. For me, it’s like going to a wake. And NOT an Irish one…

3) As for THE BUTLER, I too have to say that I’ve been rather unimpressed with what I’ve seen from it. Yes, I’ve made a little fun of it on MOVIE GEEKS UNITED (certainly not of its subject matter, but my perception of its treatment, mainly for the casting of the presidents…which, in the photos alone–and divorced from the actual movie, mind you–don‘t paint a very promising outlook). I’m also not really impressed with the trailer, which makes it looks like the sort of overbaked biopic that I don’t really care for. Still, as your essay pointed out, I could be wrong (and, of course, I will see the film–Daniels has become a filmmaker whose work any serious film lover has to see). It is an occupational hazard for a film writer to dislike movies that portray what we see as clichés, when in actuality, for the younger audience, this could be the first time they’ve encountered these tropes, and so for them, it’s brilliant. In that dichotomy, we really underline the reason why critics in general are sometimes seen as horribly out-of-touch with the masses. But, again, there’s no reason we should be IN touch: criticism is not really about the pure veracity of one’s opinions of a work, or its membership in a cabal of like-minded assessments. It’s really about one person’s ability to express an opinion in an entertaining, informative, articulate, and educated manner. As with all art forms, there are many who cannot rise to this level, and the sorry thing is that, on the internet, it’s becoming easier for those who are miserable at this art to have their voices heard by more people than those who're more accomplished. And this, again, is nothing new, in the practice of any art form.

4) I like PRECIOUS (mainly for its performances, though I wouldn't have given it all the Oscar nominations it eventually got, simply because it didn't deserve them, though Mo'nique and Gabourey Sidibe were terrific in it). Still, a very good film. THE PAPERBOY is sweaty, trashy pulp, and that’s all it set out to be, and that makes it a success of sorts, even though it’s not really my thing. THE HELP was an underrated movie, for sure, even with all the attention it got–that was a film with integrity, and I liked how it framed the struggle for equal rights. I thought it worked, and was moving and inventive (though I don't wanna go overboard here--I recognize its faults). As for MALCOLM X, that’s a movie I admire and want to like a little more than I actually do. The first hour, with its out-of-place touches of comedy and musical theater, is where its major problems lie; the last two hours are extremely well done, though, and I agree I’d rather see it on the Best Pic nominees instead of either SCENT OF A WOMAN (execrable) or A FEW GOOD MEN (kind of a bore). However, I would posit that UNFORGIVEN indeed was the best movie of that year, and I bristle at any sort of implication that says that if you aren’t over-the-moon about MALCOLM X (or THE BUTLER, for that matter), then there’s something perhaps morally wrong with, or at least partially blinding, you. In 1992, there were many movies that were better than or on the same par with MALCOLM X: Unforgiven, Howards End, The Long Day Closes, The Crying Game (actually released in 92), Glengarry Glen Ross, Brother’s Keeper, Reservoir Dogs, One False Move (my favorite black-directed film of the year, by Carl Franklin), Baraka, Hard Boiled, A Midnight Clear, Bad Lieutenant, The Player, My Cousin Vinny, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, Passion Fish, The Story of Qui Ju, Deep Cover, Brother’s Keeper, Lessons of Darkness. MALCOLM X is certainly of more hubris than some of those movies…but better? I dunno…it’s debatable. Often it falls into that same lumbering trap that so many other biopics fall into–it’s just too bloated and reductive, with a cornpone edge to it that, luckily, in this case, starts to fall away as the movie progresses (its last half IS undeniably powerful). I respect Spike Lee's film more than love it (though I do love Denzel Washington's lead, and also Al Freeman Jr. as Elijah Muhammad, and I very much do recognize the film's historical import). At any rate, I have a feeling that this is how I’m gonna feel about THE BUTLER, but I’m keeping my mind open. (By the way, one of the mistakes that biopics–including MALCOLM X or, say, RAY–make is that, when they do a birth-to-death story, they get overloaded with information and you sort of lose the essence of the subject; biopics always do better when they examine only a short section of a person’s life.)

5) In my case, I truly adore black film, but I tend not to like it when I feel it’s being watered down for some marketing or budgetary or horribly race-based reason. I really prefer the classics: Killer of Sheep, Eve’s Bayou, Roots, Nothing But A Man, Shadows, Do The Right Thing, Mandabi, Cotton Comes to Harlem, Cooley High, Menace II Society, Sidewalk Stories, Hoop Dreams, Bird, Round Midnight, She's Gotta Have It, The Watermelon Man, The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, Pinky, Imitation of Life, One False Move, The Green Pastures, The Jackie Robinson Story, To Sleep With Anger, Daughters of the Dust, Coffy, Richard Pryor Live in Concert, Sankofa, City of God, Car Wash, A Raisin in the Sun, Lady Sings The Blues, Dead Presidents, The Learning Tree, Greased Lightning, Carmen Jones, Blue Collar, Shaft, Xala, The Glass Shield, Hustle and Flow, the Barber Shop series, Foxy Brown, The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars and Motor Kings, Far from Heaven, Deep Cover, Devil in a Blue Dress, Glory, Sounder, Claudine, How High, Malcolm X (the documentary), King: From Memphis to Montgomery, Moolaade, Fresh, Wattstax, Boyz N The Hood…that sort of thing. I think every one of those films (and, yes, a few were directed by non-blacks) is at or near masterwork level. And we’re not even getting into those drive-in movies from the 70s…those films some like to term "blaxploitation," but which I look at as being just another arm of black film. At any rate, if I were advising someone young and curious about the black experience, all around the world, I would recommend that they watch these movies–even one or two of them–over recommending something that I felt was substandard or really, not a great movie, but the best that we have available that’s new.

Anyway, Sasha, I liked your article and am glad you’re positive on THE BUTLER. I hope to be so, too, but if it doesn’t happen, it just doesn’t happen. I just felt compelled to comment on some observations you ably expressed.

My eventual review of LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER can be seen here. 

An open letter to the Internet's critics-in-disguise:

What follows is my opinion only, and is not fact.

I love AWARDS DAILY and IN CONTENTION, and I love Tom O'Neil's THE ENVELOPE as well. I'm slightly bewitched by AWARDS DAILY host, the totally wild and passionate Sasha Stone (pictured above, and a person I would like to talk to sometime, 'cuz she seems like she'd be a great conversationalist). I think AD's intelligent and caring Ryan Adams is a great guy, too. Tough IN CONTENTION dude Kris Tapley and I have had disagreements--I think I'm still barred from commenting on his site, after a nasty Pauline Kael-related insult on my part (Tapley has lots of low opinions of Kael, to which I vehemently objected). But I read him often (and, most religiously, I pay attention to IC's resolutely sharp Guy Lodge). And I always admire Tom O'Neil's level-headed, journalistic, slightly-square but quite opinionated work for the L.A. Times' ENVELOPE. But I do often find myself questioning the notion that many of these treasured commenters (at least two of whom will swear up and down that they're not critics) are on a Quixotic quest to change Oscar voters' mode of thinking. In a way, I think AWARDS DAILY and, to a lesser extent, IN CONTENTION are somewhat ageist and anti-history (I know this will irritate alla them). However, before anyone flies off the handle, please let me explain...and let me assure them all they ain't gonna change the Academy in their lifetime, or in the next...

For me, primarily the AWARDS DAILY site this year (matching much of the movie-centric blogosphere) has been all about DRIVE, SHAME, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, HARRY POTTER, HUGO, and (strangely, as of late) THE HELP. I come to AWARDS DAILY, in particular, every day, so I should know (as all other AD fans should know, too). But I have long found myself wondering about the love towards all these movies, as portrayed there. So I must address each (by the way, I find it interesting that it's very difficult to locate each site's original first-look reviews of each film; it makes it hard to verify what they really thought, or what I thought they thought):

Let’s eliminate HARRY POTTER outright; critics and box office be damned, there was no way that the Oscars were going to nominate the second half of the seventh installment of a film series as Best Picture. Give it up, okay? TOY STORY 3 just last year became the first Best Picture nominee to be honored without its predecessors being so honored--and that happened only because there were a newly freaky 10 nominees. Onward.

I see the love for DRIVE being as similar a type of adoration for a bygone movie era as THE ARTIST is slammed for being. The only difference is that DRIVE comes closer to intersecting the lives of many on the Internet; it's a shiny 80s throwback piece, and that makes it instantly cool for a certain crowd, regardless of what the movie actually contains (and that final caveat tells you what I think of DRIVE, which I have to say I consider a barely-disguised remake of an underrated 1978 Walter Hill bomb called THE DRIVER).

Meanwhile, I see the love of SHAME as being a stand-in show of support for the type of sex-frown filmmaking that another 80s achiever, David Lynch, does best. The only problem is that David Lynch didn't direct SHAME (whoa, whould HE have made the film better). Fassbender and Mulligan are both terrific in the movie, but the film itself is clunky from the get-go. It's THE LOST WEEKEND all over again, with screwing as the addiction (actually, Wilder‘s 1945 movie is much more daring and, as it came at the height of alcoholism, much more relevant and edgy for its time). I love the performances in SHAME, even though I didn't care for the movie (McQueen's HUNGER is so much better). At any rate, it's not the kind of stuff that the Academy cottons to, so I sorta wasn't surprised that they left it out of the mix. The anger portrayed by fans of AWARDS DAILY towards this "snub" seems rather juvenile. As fans of the Oscars, weren't you all rather expecting this? (You have followed the Oscars for some years now, haven‘t you? And you‘ve read INSIDE OSCAR by the late and sorely lamented Mason Wiley and Damian Bona, right? You know, Sasha is a fan of these guys...)

On this note, I want to highlight that Sasha Stone has faulted the Academy for not recognizing movies with sexuality this year. But she champions 2011's SHAME and DRAGON TATTOO as, I guess, bastions of coital coupling (I can't remember any other memorable sex scenes from any other late 2010/all-of 2011 movies). Even with the wonderful Rooney Mara in my bed, I wouldn’t think I was having the best sex ever. Her rotating atop Daniel Craig was revenge rape, in some ways; Craig's character was kinda tied up the first time around and not really totally willing, and he easily forsakes her at the end (which makes Fincher's mostly boring mystery movie much more memorable, 'cause the endlessly fascinating Lizbeth Salander is ultimately totally fine with that, and I frankly think that this is what Sasha Stone like most about this actually pretty stuffy, exposition-heavy murder mystery). But even in the sexiest of 2011 movies, there was no happy fucking like in, say, THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING (which should have won Best Picture in 1988; surely we can all agree that most fucking is performed with happiness at least on SOME level). Oh, I take that back: the beginning of BRIDESMAIDS, with Kristen Wiig and Jon Hamm. Sexiest scene of the year. At any rate, the Academy may sometime tolerate on-screen fucking, but they most probably ain't gonna like it if it's done as a sideshow rather than as a plot point (DELIVERANCE is possibly the only on-screen ass-fucking that was deemed okay, I guess because it branded shitty American Southerners forever as perverts and it thus landed as a universally appealing horror/revenge story; by the way, those were 70-year-olds who voted that movie a Best Picture Oscar nomination in 1972).

So on to RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. Well…come on. The apes were great in the movie; the humans were not, and movies made by humans will always be about humans, even if the most fascinating ape in RISE is portrayed--very well, with indeterminable SFX help--by a digitally-bedotted human in front of a green screen.

Okay. So this leaves THE HELP and HUGO to attend to. I like THE HELP more than some people did upon its summertime release. But I don’t remember such impassioned support for THE HELP on AWARDS DAILY before Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer began amassing awards for their performances. I genuinely liked the movie (I was surprised, actually) and thought from the beginning that the Spencer-Davis group was the key to THE HELP's success both artistically and financially. At AWARDS DAILY or IN CONTENTION, I certainly didn’t see as many cheers for Davis all throughout this year as I did for the comparatively little-seen Andy Serkis in RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. By the way, I add as a throwaway: neither AD nor IC appreciated what to me is obviously the most important movie of 2011, Terrence Malick's THE TREE OF LIFE. It was, at best, a prickly nuisance to them since the Cannes Palme D'or win. Question: When Malick's film finally prevailed as a Best Picture nominee, why wasn't it these sites' cause celebre? Because it was homework, and homework is never fun. Unless it's another kind of homework, where you get to wear funny glasses...

So now only HUGO is left as the last bastion of hope for many of the internet’s Oscar lovers because [A] of Scorsese's now-brand-name, [B} because of its sly fantasy elements, and [C] because of 3D, which some "mavericks" now think of as a kind of hinky New Frontier.

Here, I veer off topic. At 45, I guess I'm now an old man (which is a ridiculous statement unto itself, because you don’t know me, and I'm probably wilder than you are, but I'll leave it at that). So all the 2012 nominees, for the most part, are softball throws, in AD fans‘ views. Well, can I posit something?

The people who are nominating movies for the Oscars these days aren't hailing from the 1930s. Most of them now are coming from the 1960s and 1970s--the golden era that we all love and look to as our inspiration. It's very common for people who are younger film fans to blame the perceived lameness of Oscar nominees on the old farts; kids did it in the 1970s, and I‘ll bet they did it in the 1950s, too. But (and here's the unsettling revelation for you guys): one day, all you reading this will be old farts, too. And when this happens, I guarantee you'll be tired of seeing anal rape, crushed heads, and painful dry-balled orgasms as movie milestones. This stuff will be old hat and you’ll see it for what it is: education about how awful the world is for people who are unfamiliar with suffering because they just recently came out from under their parents protective wings (most people under 25 these days didn‘t see their first R-rated movie until they were 18 or so; here, we get into a whole can of worms I‘m not gonna open unless somebody asks). With the lack of love for Hazanvicius' sweet THE ARTIST on sites like AWARDS DAILY--and it’s a movie which, Sasha and Ryan and whoever, you can all say you LIKE it all you want, but you're clearly not on its side--I see that this year's inevitable Oscar winner is looked upon as being a chintzy choice. I really believe that the cool crowd thinks it's a cop-out. And I think you’re all cheating yourselves.

What's most interesting about THE ARTIST is that it's about a film star that thinks he's a master of the form, and then the form changes on him. Right now, for all filmmakers, the form is changing on THEM as well. Even the 70-or-so-year-old Scorsese--40-something Hazanavicius's most ironic competitor--has had to reconsider what he needs to do to stay current--hence, HUGO. It makes me very mad to see people label THE ARTIST as being gimmicky. This is astounding, actually. There were 30+ years of insanely incredible silent movies (which many die-hard film fans look at as being a chore to watch, by the way). Meanwhile, the first 3D movie was BWANA DEVIL in 1952; the process gave people headaches in spite of KISS ME KATE, CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON, and DIAL M FOR MURDER and, by the early 1960s, it was seen as a “gimmick”; the only somewhat “modern” 3D movies I remember watching were ANDY WARHOL’S FRANKENSTEIN, FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3D, and PARASITE. From the early 80s to the mid-2000s, the process was virtually dead.

Okay. So now (at most) the 20-year herky-jerky life of present-day 3D is supposedly okay (even though it reduces the screen’s brightness, still gives some people headaches and still has not mastered the concept of true depth, HUGO included). So now the much loved HUGO is nominated. It’s true: cinematographer Robert Richardson and director Martin Scorsese indeed do something new with the “gimmick.” But I argue: Where is the story? It gets lost. It’s as lost as Hugo is. In fact, Hugo Cabret himself is lost in the story, because the film itself really cares about George Melies. But this tale’s in a movie called HUGO, not MELIES. At least you can say THE ARTIST is about what it’s about. You cannot say that about HUGO.

I find myself wondering if the lack of love for THE ARTIST on AWARDS DAILY (and all the way around the net) is really about an attempt by a generation to stake a claim for its own “modern” modes of thought. Is this an egotistical pine for identity.

I now ask you to come with me on a journey, to indulge me and let me suggest a “happier” alternate Oscar history, from 1980 onward (and, I‘ll admit, even this is subjective on my part, but I use the IMDB as the great equalizer, with few exceptions)…

1980: RAGING BULL (IMDB #4, with THE SHINING #1)
1981: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (IMDB #1, with DAS BOOT #2)
1982: BLADE RUNNER (IMDB #1, with E.T. #4))
1983: SCARFACE (IMDB #1, with A CHRISTMAS STORY #6)
1984: THE TERMINTOR (IMDB #1, with GHOSTBUSTERS, #3)
1985: BRAZIL (IMDB #5, with BACK TO THE FUTURE #1)
1986: BLUE VELVET (IMDB #7, with FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF #1)
1987: FULL METAL JACKET (IMDB #1, with THE PRINCESSS BRIDE #2)
1988: CINEMA PARADISO (IMDB #6, with DIE HARD #1)
1989: BATMAN (IMDB #1, with SEX LIES AND VIDEOTAPE #3)
1990: GOODFELLAS (IMDB #1, with HOME ALONE #3)
1991: BEAUTY AND THE BEAST (IMDB #1, with THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS #2)
1992: RESERVOIR DOGS (IMDB #1, with UNFORGIVEN #2)
1993: SCHINDLER’S LIST (IMDB #1, with JURRASIC PARK #2)
1994: THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION (IMDB #1, with PULP FICTION #2)
1995: TOY STORY (IMDB #5, with SE7EN #1)
1996: FARGO (IMDB #5, with INDEPENDENCE DAY #1)
1997: TITANIC (IMDB #1, with LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL #3)
1998: SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (IMDB #1, with THE BIG LEBOWSKI #2)
1999: FIGHT CLUB (IMDB #1, with THE MATRIX #3)
2000: MEMENTO (IMDB #1, with GLADIATOR #2)
2001: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (IMDB #1, with HARRY POTTER AND THE SORCERER‘S STONE #2)
2002: CITY OF GOD (IMDB #2, with SPIDERMAN #3)
2003: THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (IMDB #2, with FINDING NEMO #4)
2004: ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (IMDB #4, with THE NOTEBOOK #1)
2005: BATMAN BEGINS (IMDB #2, with V FOR VENDETTA #1)
2006: THE DEPARTED (IMDB #1, with THE PRESTIGE #2)
2007: NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN (IMDB #3, with INTO THE WILD #1)
2008: THE DARK KNIGHT (IMDB #1, with LET THE RIGHT ONE IN #8)
2009: AVATAR (IMDB #2, with INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS #4)
2010: INCEPTION (IMDB #1, with BLACK SWAN #4)
2011: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (IMDB #1, with THE DESCENDANTS #2)

TOTAL:
Nolan: 4 (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, Inception)
Scorsese: 3 (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Departed)
Spielberg: 3 (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan)
Cameron: 3 (The Terminator, Titanic, Avatar)
Fincher: 2 (Fight Club, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)
Jackson: 2 (LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring, LOTR: Return of the King)
The Coens: 2 (Fargo, No Country for Old Men)

Believe me, this took an hour or two to put together, and does not reflect my personal taste. So why did I go to this much trouble? Because I wanted to construct a kind of Best Picture history I thought many people (here on the web, at least) could go along with. I bet that, if these were the past winners, no one commenting on AWARDS DAILY or on IN CONTENTION would be complaining about the unfairness of the Oscars. They’d think all was right with the world, and that film history was marching on, ON, onward, forward and beyond--HA-YAAA! I say this because all of these movies (and their seconds, as portrayed here) are the most talked-about titles of the past 30 years, on the web and amongst real-life skin jobs (although things get much murkier when we hit the 2000s--who‘s talking about INTO THE WILD?). By the way, even though they don’t match up number by number, I will not go into the details of how I picked each title. I leave that for the reader to figure out for themselves. Let it be known that I really tried to be fair. Anyway, you have to admit, this would be a pretty populist list; there's a lot of multiple choices here over 31 years; in fact, in that time, according to this lineup, they'd only be 11 directors who didn't own these names listed above. So why aren't this year's Michel Hazanavicius or last year's Tom Hooper considered adventurous choices? Ummm...I dunno..I guess because they're adventurous choices?

Okay, forget that...so out of 31 titles, only about four of these movies are NOT about some sort of violence, death, fighting or all-out action (CINEMA PARADISO, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, TOY STORY, and ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND). Of those, only one is a soft-hearted exercise, really (CINEMA PARADISO remains, amazingly, an incredibly deeply loved film, even though it‘s in Italian; it, too, is a fantasy about cinema's innocent beginnings). Two others are semi-romantic animations, and another is a darkly romantic sci-fi story. To be complete: TITANIC is the chronicle of a disaster, so violence trumps the romance (most people cite the sinking of the ship as the movie's strong point); and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION sports the admittedly softened horrors of prison life (and really the harder PULP FICTION is the movie of that year…but where is the internet love for the adorable, black-and-white ED WOOD, which was the TRUE Best Picture of that year? At #13, that's where--actually, it's surprising and hopeful it's even that high up on the love-o-meter.

So if this alternate Oscar history I'm posing were the case, would many now be arguing about how it’s time for a kindly little movie like THE ARTIST to win the Best Picture award? Who knows? I hope scads would be doing so...but I'd doubt it. I think it'd be a case of "Meet the new boss...same as the old boss."

For a clichéd better or worse, I admire the Oscars, always, for what they try to do. They try to underline what’s best in us all. I love their attention to each individual artist. But, outside of that, they’re not only about trying to define the best movies of the year (which they rarely do); they are trying to define who we hope and wish we are as people. This, in some ways, makes them notable as an event and a reward. I’ll agree that they are often wrong. But I’ll always defend the Oscars, always, as a snapshot of where the movie industry hopes it is (artistically, financially, philosophically) at the moment the nominations are announced (the nominations are more important than the winners, by the way).

Even so, about 15 years ago, I decided there was no hope of my total adoration of a body that chose as it so often does (ROCKY over NETWORK? No way). You can see what I thought should have won Best Picture each year HERE. For my part, I have agreed with the Academy, in its entire history, nine times: GONE WITH THE WIND (39), LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (62), THE GODFATHER (72), ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (75), ANNIE HALL (77), THE DEER HUNTER (78), UNFORGIVEN (92), SCHINDLER’S LIST (93), and MILLION DOLLAR BABY (2004). So I long ago made peace with the fact that a movie like, say, BLUE VELVET, or for that matter, THE TREE OF LIFE, is never going to win Best Picture. I think MIDNIGHT COWBOY was about as close to that wackiness as we’re ever going to get.

I love the Oscars, so-called warts and all. I love what they get right, and what they get wrong. What they get right MAKES me love what they get wrong. Those who say it's not a game are mistaken. It IS a game; it’s a game designed to make us love movies--even those movies that are NOT on thie final list, because finally it gets us to consider, first of all (at least, nowadays) whether any given title WILL be on the final list or not.

I think the inevitable 2012 win of Michel Hazanavicius’ THE ARTIST is extraordinary. It’s not my favorite movie of the year (THE TREE OF LIFE, UNCLE BOONMEE, MELANCHOLIA, MONEYBALL and A SEPARATION best it, I believe). But THE ARTIST, without uttering more than one sentence, says a lot more than people give it credit for. It’s a silent movie that’s about the switchover to sound. That it’s silent doesn’t make it “gimmicky;” it makes it creative, and loving. If the viewer doesn’t like silent movies, it’s not the movie’s problem. THE ARTIST is about change; it’s even a movie that deserves to be seen on 35mm, but because a lot of 35mm houses can’t take it (because they don’t have 1:33 lenses), it’s ironically largely being shown digitally (which, by the way, accounts for its smaller release and resultantly small box office figures stateside). THE ARTIST is truly about the present-day switchover from 24 FPS film to digital, and it is also about how we have to embrace it, whether we like it or not. It’s a movie of this exact time, and this is why it deserves to win Best Picture. That, and it’s incredibly charming and doesn’t have anal rape, crushed heads, and painful, dry-balled orgasms at its center. In a way, as John Goodman says at the end, "It's perfect."

Finally, I think it’s extremely interesting that HUGO is an American movie about French silent films, and THE ARTIST is a French movie about American silent films. To me, that says that fans of HUGO think it’s cooler to say that they love silent films, as long as they’re short and fantasy-oriented, like Melies’ otherworldly works. But it also says that they’re not willing to sit through a long-form silent about people who are not conjuring spirits, doing magic tricks, and tripping to the moon. In these viewers’ worlds, George Valentin deserves so much more to be where the downtrodden George Melies finds himself as Scorsese's movie begins. But that's what I call kicking a dog when he's down...