On the Quality of Things, #4 - Oscar Spectacular!

by Wade Stuckwisch, Illustrated by Jacob Chabot

"8 Mile" certainly had its moments, but at its core it essentially remains a two-hour advertising makeover for its star Eminem. Director and Oscar winner Curtis Hanson does a commendable job of representing American poverty with an unflinching honestly, without backsliding into condescending sympathy. "8 Mile" also does its best to update the overdone "making it" story, a cliché that's already been thoroughly exhausted by Hollywood cinema. When Bunny Rabbit (Eminem) walks away from ripping apart the Leaders of the Free World at the end of the movie, the audience is free to walk away with the usual message that if you work real hard and you're the best at what you do, you can overcome any odds and earn riches and fame. However, palpable in Bunny Rabbit's victory is the loneliness and isolation of having learned to escape poverty by tearing down the hopes and dreams of everyone else around him. Sadly, these positive aspects of the movie are overshadowed by the thorough commercial whitewashing (no pun intended) Eminem's real life and music receives through the character of Bunny Rabbit. What makes Eminem's music so engaging is the violent, unpredictable persona he embodies as a rapper. Rabbit has his moments of unpredictability-he's quick to lash out, and almost always the instigator in any fray-but scenes where he does good by his ex and defends a gay coworker are obvious image-polishing additions by someone behind the scenes, who must have realized early that "8 Mile" was going to attract a large audience of non-fans and suburban parents curious about the Eminem phenomenon. The creators of "8 Mile" squandered the opportunity to explore a complex and controversial character, and take a hard look at race, poverty and the commercial exploitation of hip-hop culture; instead, the message of the movie is, essentially, "Would the real Slim Shady please pipe down-we've got profits to make here."

But on to the Oscars. This year reminds me in many ways of 1996, the year I was a freshman in film school. During the ceremony I was busy working on some freshman paper in my dorm room, and I learned the results of the Best Picture award around 11PM, when I heard issuing from the common space, loud and clear, "Fuck 'The English Patient!'" Similar to 1996, while many fine films have been nominated this year, no single film stands out as a clear favorite, and none has the extra distinction of being the "prestige picture" of a major studio (other than Miramax, who bank on the Oscars most years to stay in the black). This year was also much like 1996, in that it seems the major studios were too busy hedging their bets with easy money-makers to pay that much attention to artistry or story. (In '96 the top 5 grossing films included two disaster pics and a remake of a TV show; this year the top 5 includes three sequels and four pictures based on well-known literary works.)

There have been bright spots this year: there was "Insomnia," Christopher Nolan's clever follow-up to "Memento"; "Road to Perdition," Sam Mendes's picturesque follow-up to "American Beauty"; "Spiderman," one of the better thought-out action films in recent memory; and the two big budget pictures gaining Best Picture nominations, "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" and "Gangs of New York." There were also a number of interesting independent films that I, regrettably, never took the opportunity to see, and I hope to catch on video ("Secretary" and "Y Tu Mama Tambien" among them). Oh, and there was that whole "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" phenomenon, which I can't comment on because I never saw the movie and I never really gave two shits. (Nothing will make critics backpedal like a film they all dismissed on release, that suddenly becomes a sleeper hit.) But let's talk about one recent movie, that was notably overlooked by the Academy: Spike Lee's latest joint "25th Hour."

Every year I have a habit of championing one specific movie as the picture that has been most egregiously slighted by the Academy by receiving few or no Oscar nominations. This year I honestly don't have a pick. While I thoroughly enjoyed "25th Hour," I can understand why it was slighted (aside from industry politics). There were points where the film dragged, there were ideas and stories that were never allowed to fully develop, and other ideas and departures that failed to work in unison with the rest of the film. But what I love about "25th Hour" is its bravery, its willingness to take risks-a feature conspicuously lacking in tamer material like "Insomnia" and "Road to Perdition." "25th Hour" reminded me of the signature films by maverick directors like Scorsese, Lucas and Coppola-directors influenced by the French New Wave and other revolutionaries of world cinema-that inspired critics to declare the birth of a new generation in American filmmaking. Sadly, with the exception of Scorsese (who's happily still crazy after all these years) I can't think of one director from the film school generation-or almost any other high-profile filmmaker in the US-that would dare even use a jump cut in one of their movies for fear of a critical backlash. "25th Hour" should be a wake-up call from Spike to the establishment: here is a director who's still willing to shake things up, who refuses to compromise to gain acceptance, and of course, who refuses to be bound by the expectations of critics and audience. It's a remarkable marriage between self-conscious cinema and true-to-life storytelling: even with the jarring cinematography and soliloquies to the audience, it's the lives and stories of the characters and their interaction that create meaning, instead of serving to illustrate a conscious, underlying message. I would rather see a film like "25th Hour," that strives to be something more and might occasionally fall short, than any film that never aspires to be more than a careful copy of its predecessors.

That said, no Oscar-related article would be complete without a guess at who's taking home top honors, and I think the choice is pretty clear this year. "The Hours" and "The Pianist" are both too small and too low profile to win, in my opinion. (Plus, I bet Hollywood is still a little squeamish about Polanski contributing to the delinquency of a minor back in the '70s.) "Gangs of New York" is a triumph of epic filmmaking: the sets and costumes are exquisite to the last speck of grime, Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is unmatched, and it's by far Martin Scorsese's best-realized movie in years. It's also a brave message to offer a post-September 11th world (although the movie was originally slated for released less than four months after the attack). Unfortunately, it's been a disappointment at the box office (where it counts) and it hasn't exactly been a critical darling. And I know all of you reading this want "Two Towers" to win, but it ain't gonna happen. First of all, it's a fantasy picture, and secondly, it's the sequel to a previous Oscar loser. Let's face it, there are certain types of movies the Academy voting committee will never take seriously, and sci-fi and fantasy top the list. Do you know what movie won Best Picture in 1968, the year "2001: A Space Odyssey" didn't even get nominated? "Oliver!" Yes, "Oliver!" And in 1982, when "Blade Runner" was released and also wasn't nominated? Okay, that year "Gandhi" won, which is hard to trump. And "E.T." did get nominated for Best Picture that year. Still, my point remains.

So what picture do I surmise is going to win this year, by process of elimination? Yes, "Chicago." And I HATE that fact. I'll readily admit that, as of press time, I haven't even seen "Chicago." But the only thing I've heard about it from anyone who has seen it is that "it's a very good musical." Is it a creative, new twist on the musical genre, like "Moulin Rouge" for example? No. Is it an original work for the screen, or at least a new musical? Or is it even the first film version of "Chicago?" No, no and, if you count the 1927 silent version or the 1942 film "Roxie Hart," no. It's just a musical, albeit a good one. And if the Academy grants a safe, predictable song-and-dance picture like "Chicago" an Oscar, Hollywood is willingly taking a twenty-five year leap backwards in time. I would rather see an overtly commercial effort like "8 Mile" take home top honors. In short, fuck "Chicago." Spike, this year we all been robbed.

To close, I would like to mention one of the better movies I've seen in the last two months: "Old School." If there were Academy Awards for dumb, screwball comedy, "Old School" would win hands down. Oh, sure, it's a blend of some of the most worn-out, tired plots in moviedom: part "City Slickers," part "Revenge of the Nerds" and five parts "Animal House." But if "Caddyshack" has taught us anything, it's the fact that an original or even a coherent plot is totally unnecessary for a classic comedy - occasionally it's even a burden. "Old School" has a fantastic cast, and getting dramatic actors the caliber of Vince Vaughn and Luke Wilson for this type of comedy was clearly an inspired move. And Will Ferrell's contribution is not to be overlooked: he brings subtlety to a character utilized mostly for cheap sight gags, making his serious scenes later in the film much more effective. There's some surprisingly clever jabs at movies like "The Graduate," "Fight Club" and "American Beauty," skewering movies that have perhaps taken the ennui and immaturities of the privileged a little too seriously. But the best thing about "Old School?" In the end, no one learns anything and none of the protagonists get their comeuppance. Luke Wilson walks off with the girl, Vince Vaughn keeps his wife, kids, and his big beautiful house in suburbia, and Will Ferrell remains a confused, alcoholic man-child. Let's face it, good comedy is not about life lessons, and it's refreshing to see a movie that lets us laugh at its characters' follies without laying out a guilt trip at the end. Oh yeah, and the gags in the movie are a laugh riot. If Hollywood insists of cranking out tired, predictable drama and loud, annoying action, I'll take a reasonably clever shit-for-brains comedy over any of that other nonsense any day.

-March, 2003