Academy Awards Best Picture Roundup

Sunday night is the 84th Academy Awards, ladies and gents, so get ready to indulge in our favorite love-to-hate-it yearly Hollywood ritual of glamour, self-love and flaccid jokes about how long the show is. Set your DVRs (the show starts with red carpet nonsense at 7EST/4PST on ABC) and start planning the themed snacks for your Oscar party now! (Poi for The Descendents? Hot dogs for Moneyball?  Ah, hell, nothing’s gonna beat 1993, when in honor of The Piano, my brother made Lady Fingers.) Read on, will you?

Once again, the Best Picture category has been upped from the traditional five to—this year—nine, supposedly in an attempt to include more popular films and therefore amp up viewership for the show. Remains to be seen if this scheme worked (it didn’t last year), since it was such a poor movie year overall and the most successful movies from 2011 (Harry Potter, Transformers, Twilight) are nowhere to be found on this list. The closest thing to a “hit” is The Help, which was the 13th most successful film from last year. Take from that what you will. Twenty-year-olds still aren’t going to watch this show.

Anyway! Moving on.  Below, your annotated guide to the nine that made the cut. A primer, if you will, on what they are, whether or not you should bother to see them if you haven’t already and their chances of taking home the gold. (Win that office Oscar pool and make us proud!) The handicapping is based solely on reading the general atmosphere and personal opinion, but in brackets I’ve included the actual Las Vegas odds, as compiled by the sports gambling odds website Odds Shark.

The Artist:

What it’s about: A silent film star must deal with the advent of talkies. Audiences must deal with a black and white silent film and excessive adorableness in both human and canine forms.

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: What could have been just a formal exercise is actually fairly delightful—including a few scenes that might even be considered masterful bits of cinema–if narratively simplistic and overlong. And you’re gonna want that dog Uggie to sit in your lap forever. Not to mention Jean DuJardin. (Dibs!) It is also stunning to look at—literally like nothing we’ve seen in 80 years. Worth catching on the big screen if you can.

Why it was nominated: The Academy’s self love knows no bounds. The whole thing is a love-letter to not only cinema, but Hollywood itself. It sings! It dances! It mugs! It burns! It swoons.

Chances it will win: Extremely good. The combination of “artistic” (it’s in black and white, for Chrissake! And it’s silent!) and utterly accessible crowd-pleaser is almost unbeatable. Plus, it’s French people giving America a nice warm sponge bath and you know we all love that. (Dibs!) [1/12—that’s good! It’s the favorite.]

The Descendents:

What it’s about: When his wife falls into a coma, a father has to truly parent his two daughters for the first time—and discover how flawed his marriage really was. Plus tropical storm clouds.

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: It’s an utterly gimmick-free, family “dramedy” of the type Hollywood rarely makes anymore (having surrendered this genre to TV or the occasional Indie movie). George Clooney does give a solid, if not terribly taxing (for him) performance; it’s certainly a star turn—in the Old Hollywood way of a “star” playing himself, but…wounded. (It’s not like he learned an accent or anything.) All the supporting actors—from Judy Greer to young Shailene Woodley as Clooney’s eldest–are terrific. Director Alexander Payne actually displays moments of giving an actual shit about actual human beings. This is practically a miracle in filmmaking terms, so if you haven’t; yeah, go take a look. (Perfectly fine to wait for DVD.)

Why it was nominated: It’s a family “dramedy” of the type Hollywood rarely makes anymore. (Are you paying attention?) A well respected director. Clooney. (I.E., most rightly beloved man alive.) Rich Hollywood types are glad the rest of America will now know that Hawaii weather is actually kind of sucky.

Chances it will win: What looked like a shoe-in a few months ago is sagging under the clever, charming, French juggernaut of The Artist. Maybe Clooney should have danced adorably on SNL. [10/1; which puts it in 2nd place.]

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close:

What it’s about: Well it’s not about 9/11! All the ads said so! (It’s totally about 9/11. Or, at least, one ridiculously cute, socially maladroit boy’s attempt to connect to the beloved father he lost on—wait for it—9 freaking 11. )

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: Completely depends on your tolerance for twee retellings of tragedy. Honestly, it’s boring as all fuck, the kid isn’t believable for a second, it takes place in some magical, J.D. Salinger-esque New York, the quirky details pile up so high and fast you’ll need waders. But most people liked Titanic, so the fact that this was critically pilloried means we really, but really don’t want to see a movie about 9/11.

Why it was nominated: “Important” themes. An “important” director. Literary source material. A clever-sounding if utterly meaningless title. I got nothing.

Chances it will win: Take a 9. Subtract 11. –2. [75/1]

The Help:

What it’s about: A young white woman collects the stories of the African American maids in Jackson, Mississippi, circa 1963. And bitches. Lots and lots of bitches.

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: Literally no reason. What you imagine this movie is? That’s exactly what it is. There is not a surprising moment, character, shot or line of dialogue—except for the ones that make absolutely no sense. The writing and direction are Hallmark Hall of Fame quality. The Help falls into a category I like to call “Mawkish Bullshit”. (See: Gump, Forrest.) Even lauded performances by Viola Davis and Octavia Spenser barely make this worth sitting through. (Davis’ one spectacular scene in Doubt has it all over this manipulative, tear-jerking hogwash.)

Why it was nominated: Civil Rights. White guilt. Some other shit that’s too depressing to contemplate.

Chances it will win: In a world where Crash won? And The Blind Side was nominated for Best effing Picture? (The Blind Side? Really? I still can’t…even…) It actually could—particularly if the old white men of the Academy have last minute doubts about giving the gold to a…a…Frenchmen. [12/1; that’s third favorite, to you.]

Hugo:

What it’s about: The adorable, orphaned urchin who lives in the Paris train station ventures to fix the automaton his beloved father found (what is it about dead, beloved fathers?) and ends up “fixing” a broken old man too. Everybody say “awwww…”

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: Visually beautiful (if unnecessarily in 3D; seriously, are we really going to make 3D happen? Can we not? Please?) but painfully paced (i.e., slow as a dying watch works), annoyingly repetitive, chock full of inconsistent performances (Sasha Baron Cohen is a particular embarrassment) and so very proud of its own charms that after a while your teeth start to hurt . This is the Werther’s Original of movie-making. (In truth, I just fucking hate urchins.)

Why it was nominated: It was directed by this fellow named Martin Scorsese? You may have heard of him? The Academy is still trying to make up for that whole Raging Bull debacle. Plus, another love letter to cinema–and who doesn’t love a love letter to themselves? Even a predictable, treacly, over-long one? (Are you kidding? Those are the best kind!)

Chances it will win: About as good as the chances that anyone born this year will ever wear a watch. [20/1]

Midnight in Paris:

What it’s about: A melancholic writer longs to be back in the Paris of the 20’s and before you can say “movable feast”, he is.

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: Swimming in charm. Paris—both in its contemporary and period incarnations—couldn’t be more delectable. Owen Wilson actually manages to “do” “Woody Allen” without being as annoying as Woody Allen; his strange, Southern eccentric miraculously works channeling Allen’s neurotic, New York intellectual. The supporting players are all excellent too; Kathy Bates gorgeously chews the scenery as Gertrude Stein and Corey Stoll’s Hemingway would toll anyone’s bell. The premise, however, is paper thin, and you’ll probably tire of it—and be ahead of it—before the movie’s over; almost feels like it could have been an absolute masterpiece—as a short film. The phrase “delightful trifle” comes to mind.

Why it was nominated: A high-class comedy of ideas from Woody Allen? That’s like a license to print “Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture!” on all the posters. Namely because…

Chances it will win: Are exactly zero. At this point, the Academy is giving Allen mercy nominations. He’s a national treasure, don’t you know. But he never shows up to the ceremony, he makes his films outside of the Hollywood system, none of his movies make much money and he makes—hide the kids!—comedies. [75/1]

Moneyball:

What it’s about: The true story of Billy Beane’s success making the Oakland A’s competitive against far richer teams by using a newfangled system (and a nerd!) to hire undervalued players.

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: If you have any interest in baseball (or baseball movies, which I like better than the actual, you know, sport) then yes: it indulges in all the classic tropes—lovably dopey players! come from behind wins! miraculous streaks!—without being ridiculous; namely because it’s all true and tempered by this less-than-perfect thing called “reality”. Pitt gives a charming, if familiar, performance. Bennet Miller really does know how to direct.

Why it was nominated: Brad Pitt, fast becoming “beloved” as both actor and producer. Based on a well-liked, high-minded yet accessible book by the well-liked, high-minded yet accessible Michael Lewis. A smart baseball movie! Academy says pass the crackerjacks!

Chance it will win: About as good—spoiler alert!—as the Oakland A’s chances of winning the 2002 World Series. [40/1]

The Tree of Life:

What it’s about: There’s this family? In 50s Texas? And the two boys run around a lot and the mother is angelic and the father is difficult and then there’s Sean Penn, playing one of the boys grown-up and he’s a little moody and then there are…dinosaurs? Yeah, I said dinosaurs. Hell, it’s impossible to say what this movie is about. It’s an impressionistic meditation on life, death, family, resurrection, grace, God and the history of the universe. What, you want more than that from your movies? Greedy much?

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: Look, it’s long. The pacing is…deliberate. The story is…a pastiche at best. There’s not a lot of…dialogue. But. It’s a film, a real, honest-to-god film. And if you have any interest in the art of cinema, yes; see it. Terrence Malick is a genuinely masterful director and he’s created a fully immersive, sensual experience that’s nothing if not thought-provoking. (The dinner table conversation afterward will be a real bonus!) The cinematography alone is worth a trip—big screen really necessary, folks.

Why it was nominated: A brilliant American director known as much for his eccentricity (doesn’t do interviews! won’t be photographed! who is this guy?) as his parsimonious output (five feature films in nearly forty years) makes a star-studded (Brad Pitt! Sean Penn!), partly period (we love period!) film about Big Themes and America. It would have been churlish to deny it a nomination, particularly in a) a sucky movie year like this and b) with the new, increased number of nominees.

Chance it will win: About as good—spoiler alert number two!—as the dinosaurs. [75/1]

War Horse:

What it’s about: A kid, a horse, World War I. Love! Valor! Compassion! Horse’s big, round, shiny, disturbing eye.

Why you should/shouldn’t see it: How much do you like Steven Spielberg’s patented mix of highly polished film-making and unabashed sentiment? Embarrassed to say “a little”? Or sharpening your claws as we speak? It got a 74% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, but no one I know liked it at all (confession: this is the one Best Picture nom I haven’t seen)–even people who adored the much beloved play. And some people positively loathe this movie. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Why it was nominated: Spielberg, hello! Plus: Period British drama (Academy go schwing!), based on a Tony-winning play (classy!) and war? Come on.

Chance it will win: No one really loved this movie (even the critics who liked it), no one talked about it, it gained no traction at all. What do those darling, cheeky Brits say? Nil? That. [40/1]

So there you go, folks; let the snarktastic comments about the ladies’ gown choices begin!

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *