2015 Blind Spot Series: “Goldfinger”

GOLDFINGER poster

I could probably fill half of my Blind Spot series lineup with James Bond films. I’ve just never been what you would call a big 007 fan. That said I do love the Craig films and a couple of Brosnan’s, but I’ve never felt compelled to give the older Bond films much of a chance. In an effort to do that I thought “Goldfinger” would be a good place to start. In fairness I have seen much of the film but never all of it and (obviously) never in one sitting. Yet I have heard so many good things about it especially from Bond aficionados who know and love the franchise a lot more than I do.

“Goldfinger” is the third film in the Bond series and the third of Sean Connery’s six Bond films. Watching Connery work it is easy to understand why many consider him to be the best Bond. “Goldfinger” is also recognized for its many firsts. It was the first 007 film categorized as a blockbuster. It’s budget equaled the previous two films combined and the movie’s promotion heralded it as a big box office draw. “Goldfinger” was also the film that made the extensive use of gadgets a fixture. It was also the first James Bond film to win an Academy Award and it was well received by both critics and audiences. The film would also influence the series in many other areas such as the title credits sequence and overall production quality. In many ways “Goldfinger” changed the standard of what a Bond film was to be.

GOLFINGER11

The story finds Bond lounging it up at a fancy Miami Beach resort, but soon he finds the true reason he was sent there and it wasn’t for vacation. At the same resort is Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe), an obsessed gold smuggler. 007 is tasked with observing Goldfinger and finding out how his smuggling operation works. Bond’s mission takes him London, Switzerland, and bluegrass Kentucky. At each stop he finds himself getting a little too close to his objective and Goldfinger always seems one step ahead of him. But as 007 begins to piece together the inner workings of Goldfinger’s operation, he discovers a much bigger and more sinister plot.

Half of the fun in watching “Goldfinger” involves the characters Bond meets along the way. First there is Goldfinger himself. At first I wasn’t totally convinced in Fröbe’s portrayal but director Guy Hamilton never uses Fröbe beyond the actor’s capabilities. The big surprise was learning that the voice of Fröbe, who spoke practically no English, was dubbed. It’s a clever trick that is brilliantly pulled off. There is also Oddjob (Harold Sakata), Goldfinger’s enforcer and right-hand man. He’s a stout strong arm known for is lethal bowler hat. Silly and preposterous for sure, but he is also entertaining and a lot of fun.

Then of course there are the Bond girls. The stunningly beautiful Shirley Eaton meets Bond in Miami and gives us one of cinema’s most iconic images. Tania Mallett comes along next and aside from her shaky acting, she is a mysterious character that did little to serve the plot. But then you have Honor Blackman as the cool, confident, beautiful, and provocatively named Pussy Galore. Easily one of the most famous Bond girls, Galore had a tougher side which made her a lot more than the typical eye candy. For the rest of her career Blackman would always find herself connected to this classic character.

GOLDFINGER1

“Goldfinger” is absurd and it times in sanely over-the-top. But at the same time it never falls into the cheesy category that some of the later Bond films would. I never had a problem just going along with the craziness of the plot or the way things unfold. There’s a fine line there and “Goldfinger” navigates it beautifully. That’s not to say there weren’t moments where the story pushes believability too far, but that’s forgivable when you’re being so entertained. The film doesn’t allow you to concentrate on its absurdity. The pacing is so crisp and the direction so calculated. It’s also a beautiful film to look at. Some of the locales are breathtaking and the film utilizes them well. But I was even more impressed with some of the clever camera techniques that truly made the film feel spectacular.

In a nutshell “Goldfinger” is a really good movie and I can understand why Bond fans hold it in such high regard. For those who are not fans of the suave secret agent, well this is unquestionably a Bond film so take that as you will. But consider this, as a lukewarm fan of the franchise, I had a blast. Connery is superb, the action is well done, and the story is good crazy fun. The film was surrounded by lawsuits both prior to and during development so it’s a surprise it got off the ground. Thankfully it did and in doing so it gave audiences a classic 007 movie. Without a doubt this is Bond done right.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

5 Phenomenal Movie Betrayals

movie_theatre - Phenom 5

Movies have the amazing ability to capture all sorts of human actions and the emotions and motivations that drive them. Not all of those actions are good which leads to this particular Phenomenal 5. Today I’m looking at movie betrayals and there certainly have been a ton of them. The sheer number of characters who have stabbed another in the back was hard to narrow down. I decided to skip some of the obvious choices and go for more variety. So considering how many there were to choose from I wouldn’t call this the definitive list, but there’s no denying that these five movie betrayals are phenomenal (ummm, but not in a good way).

Obviously spoilers will follow!

#5 – “Total Recall” (1990)

BENNY

 

Call this the “I would betray anybody for a dollar” betrayal. In “Total Recall” (the fun original sci-fi actioner, not the unwatchable 2012 mess) . Schwarzenegger finds himself fighting with an underground mutant rebellion against a wicked and oppressive governor on Mars. Along the way he meets Benny, a good-natured taxicab driver who inadvertently joins Arnie in the fight. The problem is Benny is actually working for the tyrannical governor and he turns his back on the rebellion at the worst possible time. And not only has he lied about one thing after another, but it’s revealed that he’s a mutant and has turned on his own kind. It’s a pretty rotten betrayal.

#4 – “Goodfellas”

GOODFELLAS

Call this the “betraying isn’t always a bad thing” betrayal. Martin Scorsese’s quintessential gangster movie features a betrayal that is distinctly memorable.  And while it is most certainly a betrayal, it can easily be argued that it was a good one. Henry Hill made a good life for himself along with his wise-guy pals. But once the law comes down on their illegal activities Henry is offered an opportunity to leave his criminal life. But to do so would require him to turn on his buddies. That’s a pretty unsavory thing to do and living straight may be his biggest challenge. But turning from crime is a good thing even if turning on your friends is a bit shady.

#3 – “Dial M for Murder”

DIAL M

Call this one the “cheating never pays” betrayal. In Alfred Hitchcock’s wonderful 1954 thriller we see a pretty ugly deviation from holy matrimony. In fact it features two different betrayals. First you have a socialite wife (played by the stunning Grave Kelly) who cheats on her husband. That’s bad. But then the husband, who has secretly found out about his wife’s infidelity, devises a brutal betrayal of his own. He devises a plan to have his wife murdered. That’s bad too. Both husband and wife are flawed people and they both seem content to betray the other, just in wildly different but equally vile ways.

#2 – “Social Network”

The Social Network

Call this the “business over friendship” betrayal. I was surprised by how enthralling and effective a story about social media could be. David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin teamed up to tell the story of friendship, Facebook, and ultimately a shameful betrayal. It shows the creation of Facebook by two close college friends Mark Zuckerberg and Eduardo Saverin. But Zuckerberg is lured by his lust for greed and success which leads to him deceiving and ultimately cutting the financial throat of his one time close friend. Conniving, self-centered, and shameful. Just a few of the many words that could describe this pathetic betrayal.

#1 – “The Empire Strikes Back”

EMPIRE

This could be called the “saving your own butt” betrayal. I mean Lando, how could you do it? Now to be fair the powerful and evil Darth Vader had Lando by the throat (quite literally). And as the head honcho of Cloud City, Lando had to worry about Vader blowing Bespin out of the sky. But I still remember the first time I saw Lando lure Han, Leia, and Chewie into Vader’s trap. As a kid I was absolutely furious. It really does set up one of the original trilogy’s best story angles and it should be said Lando was between a rock and a hard place. But it’s still a betrayal of epic proportions and it stands out as my easy #1.

So what do you think of my picks? See something I missed? What would’ve made your list? Please take time to share your thoughts in the comment section below.

REVIEW: “The Theory of Everything”

THEORY POSTER

Renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking has often found himself the object of a rather unusual fascination from the entertainment industry. Beyond the number of documentaries made about his life, he also appeared in everything from “Star Trek” to “The Simpsons”. But surprisingly there hasn’t been a biographical feature length drama until James Marsh’s “The Theory of Everything”. The film offers a unique romantic perspective by putting its main focus on the relationship between Stephen and his first wife Jane Wilde Hawking.

The film is based on Jane Hawking’s book “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen”, an updated version of her previous released biography. The story begins in 1963 when a young cosmology student named Stephen (Eddie Redmayne) meets a literature student named Jane (Felicity Jones) at a Cambridge University party. The two are clearly opposites but there is an undeniable attraction between them. There relationship grows as Stephen excels in his studies of science and mathematics. He is particularly encouraged by his professor (David Thewlis) who sees the amazing potential in Stephen’s intelligence and ideas.

THEORY1

Redmayne and Jones have a surprisingly good chemistry which makes the relationship between their characters easy to buy into and digest. Stephen approaches Jane much like he does everything – systematically and very matter of fact. But she offers the perfect personality and balance to the unorthodox Stephen. Watching the relationship grow and flourish is the film’s most compelling dramatic component. But their affection is almost derailed after Stephen learns he has motor neuron disease. He is given two years to live and closes himself off from everyone especially Jane. But her love and determination not only keeps them together but gives Stephen the needed feeling of normalcy and the inspiration to keep fighting.

“The Theory of Everything” chronicles Hawking’s debilitating disease and the punishing toll it takes on his body and life. But it also highlighted his inspiring resilience and emphasized the unquestioned devotion of Jane. Redmayne is just superb offering several emotional levels to his character while also capturing the increasing physical impairments that end up leaving him bound to a wheelchair and unable to speak. The film is respectful in its handling of the illness and doesn’t exploit it for dramatic effect. But it’s Redmayne who makes it work by immersing himself into the character and avoiding many of the trappings that accompany this kind of role.

I was also surprised at just how much I enjoyed Felicity Jones. She’s charming, genuine, and energetic. Even more, there are times where she actually lifts up the material and makes a line of dialogue or emotional interaction work despite the occasional shortcomings of the script. James Marsh is a skilled documentarian and his work here shows that to be both an asset and a liability. This truly is a beautiful film to look at. There are a number of eye-grabbing shots and some interesting camera tricks. I particularly liked how the camera would sometimes move as if inspired by Hawking’s thorough perspective. It would scour a room or individual soaking up information much like Hawking himself.

THEORY2

But sadly the film isn’t without its problems. It does avoid drawn out discussions of thermal dynamics and cosmology while still representing Hawking’s scientific specialty. But there were moments where the science felt shoehorned in. The film also uses several common biopic devices which keeps it from being anything fresh in the crowded genre. And then there is the last 15 minutes which felt terrible rushed and seemed to cover a few random events meant to tidy everything up. It comes off feeling like the film ran out of time necessitating a quick and clunky ending.

There is still a good story to be found in “The Theory of Everything” despite its standard biopic flavor and rushed ending. In fact it has moments where it absolutely shines. But the performances are the real treat especially from Redmayne who gives us the best work of his young career. It’s hard to watch him and not be impressed with the effort and earnestness he puts into every facet of the Stephen Hawking character. For someone like myself it was a surprise performance and it is hard to argue with his Oscar nomination and win. Now let’s just hope that his “Jupiter Ascending” performance didn’t undo the recognition this film has earned him.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

2015 Oscars Rundown & Random Thoughts

OSCARS

Last night was Hollywood’s biggest event. The 87th Academy Awards have come and gone and as always they have left us with plenty to talk about. Behind the glamorous dresses, spiffy tuxedos, pristine hair, and sparkling jewels are the movies, supposedly the best from the previous year although that is rarely the case. This year’s group of nominees weren’t the most exciting or inspired batch but the night did offer some entertainment and a rare surprise or two.

Prior to the show I shared my predictions for the big six categories HERE. In the end I only missed one pick out of the six. Otherwise it went pretty much as I had planned. Here is a rundown of the big six categories followed by some random thoughts on the night itself.

BEST PICTURE

BIRDMAN PICTURE

WINNER – “Birdman”
MY PREDICTION – “Birdman”

RUNDOWN – The winds shifted from “Boyhood” to “Birdman” several weeks ago and the writing was on the wall. I have to say I was disappointed. “Birdman” isn’t a bad movie but it isn’t nearly as profound as it wants to be. “Birdman” is a visual wonder and features strong performances, but it’s a hollow movie that wins with its flash and showiness. “Boyhood” is a much quieter, more subtle film that doesn’t stroke the creative egos the way “Birdman” does. I’ve said it elsewhere, Richard Linklater doesn’t make routine Oscar-type films and that’s a good thing. He makes smaller personal pictures that don’t cater to Oscar voters. It makes sense that he wouldn’t win for the wonderful “Boyhood”. Meanwhile “Birdman” will go down as one of the lesser films to win the big award in my worthless opinion.

BEST DIRECTOR

INARRITu

WINNER – Alejandro González Iñárritu
MY PREDICTION – Alejandro González Iñárritu

RUNDOWN – In recent years good directing seems to be equated to the visual side of the craft. It’s an overly simple way of viewing the art of direction, but it is the reason Iñárritu won for “Birdman”. From a sheer technical point of view “Birdman” is an accomplishment and its hard to argue with Iñárritu’s win. I just hope that some day the category will broaden its idea of what directing is.

BEST ACTOR

REDMAYNE

WINNER – Eddie Redmayne
MY PREDICTION – Michael Keaton

RUNDOWN – When making my prediction I noted that Eddie Redmayne and his performance in “The Theory of Everything” had gained a lot of momentum. But I didn’t think he had enough to overcome Michael Keaton’s early lead and veteran status. Well, I was completely wrong. Redmayne’s win surprised a lot of people, but I would never call it undeserved. He gives an excellent performance which seems tailor-made for the Academy.

BEST ACTRESS

MOORE

WINNER – Julianne Moore
MY PREDICTION – Julianne Moore

RUNDOWN – I still haven’t seen “Still Alice” so it’s hard to be objective. It’s also hard to imagine that Moore isn’t deserving. This was a no brainer and Moore had this one in the bag before the show began. I still wish Cotillard could have won, but that was never going to happen.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

SIMMONS

WINNER – J.K. Simmons
MY PREDICTION – J.K. Simmons

RUNDOWN – I can’t imagine anyone not having Simmons picked to win this on their Oscar ballot. He has won every single award leading up to the Oscars so his win last night was no surprise at all. And how can you not root for the guy? A premiere character actor who gave one of the best speeches of the night.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

87th Annual Academy Awards - Show

WINNER – Patricia Arquette
MY PREDICTION – Patricia Arquette

RUNDOWN – Yet another win that shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Arquette is so good as the heart and soul of “Boyhood”. It’s such a shame the film was brushed off by the Academy voters but at least they got this right. Hats off to Arquette for a wonderful and authentic performance.

Now here are a few random thoughts:

  • Neil Patrick Harris was wonderful in the show’s opening musical number.

TEXT OPENING

  • Neil Patrick Harris was pretty awful after the show’s opening musical number.
  • Love seeing “Ida” win Best Foreign Language Film. It was expected but also well deserved. And Pawel Pawlikowski talking off the orchestra was fabulous.
  • The performance of “Glory” was so good. But then along came Common. Him aside, it was still a moving production but clearly one to show the other nominees they had no chance.
  • It was a really good night for “The Grand Budapest Hotel”. A grand total of four well deserved and satisfying wins. That makes me happy.
  • Neil Patrick Harris could have used a few lessons in taste. Making fun of a woman’s dress who just shared her son’s suicide story wasn’t needed.
  • At first Sean Penn looked like he might be stoned. Then he made the tacky Green Card joke about Iñárritu and I was sure he was stoned.
  • That was Lady Gaga singing! That was really Lady Gaga singing! I mean it! That was really, really Lady Gaga singing! Bravo!

TEXT GAGA

  • The long drawn out briefcase gag should have died a very early death.
  • I understand the nominees who use their acceptance speeches to further a cause they are passionate about. But sometimes I love those humble, contrite, ‘thank you’ speeches more.
  • One moment John Travolta is hilariously poking fun at his recent Oscar mishaps. The next moment he’s awkwardly fondling Idina Menzel’s face. Weird.
  • Congrats to Alexandre Desplat for winning a Best Original Score for “The Grand Budapest Hotel”. To makes music that perfectly fits into Wes Anderson’s quirky world is no easy task.
  • Meryl Streep didn’t win (thank goodness), but that didn’t stop them from finding ways to mention or show her every time you turn around. I wonder what she’ll be nominated for next year?
  • While I was still holding out hope, sadly Dick Poop went home empty-handed last night. There is no justice in this world.
  • “Birdman” winning Best Original Screenplay over “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is an absolute head-scratcher. It was by far “Birdman’s” weakest component and no where nearly as creative, layered, and insanely original as “Budapest”. But it’s the Oscars. Whatcha gonna do?

TEXT BIRDMAN NO GOOD

  • “The Lego Movie” still had a great showing. The performance of “Everything is Awesome” was a hoot and they brought their own Lego Oscars. Snub the Academy!
  • Loved seeing Patricia Arquette win and I was anxious for her speech, but reading word-for-word off of a piece of paper made it feel a tad emotionless despite its good message.
  • “Interstellar” wins the Oscar for Best Visual Effects (as if there was another choice). Glad to know the Academy at least remembered it came out last year. Sigh…
  • Can I go ahead and start the petition to have Robert Downey, Jr. as next year’s Oscar host. He may not do it, but can you imagine how he would bring the house down???

TEXT LINKLATER

So there’s a brief breakdown and some random thoughts on the 87th Academy Awards. With a few exceptions it was a predictable night. Plenty of questionable winners but a few pleasant surprises. What did you think of Hollywood’s big show?

2015 Oscar Picks – The Big Six

OSCARS

It’s hard to believe it but tomorrow night is Oscar night. I realize that some dismiss the event, but I always enjoy it. Granted, I rarely agree with them, but I always love the opportunity to celebrate movies and talk about them among my movie loving pals. To be honest this year’s Oscars seem to be lacking the excitement mainly due to what could be termed a less than exciting field of nominees. Nevertheless there are some intriguing scenarios so I’m going to talk about them, namely the Big Six Oscar categories. Here are the nominees, who I think should win, who I think will win, the category’s most criminal omission, and a brief breakdown.

BEST PICTURE

“American Sniper”
“Birdman”
“Boyhood”
“The Grand Budapest Hotel”
“The Imitation Game”
“Selma”
“The Theory of Everything”
“Whiplash”

WHO SHOULD WIN – “Boyhood”

WHO WILL WIN – “Birdman”

MOST CRIMINAL OMISSION – “Interstellar”

BREAKDOWN – If you would have asked me a month ago I would have told you with certainty that “Boyhood” would win Best Picture. But over time there has been this weird swell of backlash and regardless of how unfair it paints the film, “Boyhood” seems to have taken a fairly big blow. And it just may be enough to knock it out of a Best Picture Oscar. But the more I thought about it the more it makes sense. Richard Linklater doesn’t make Oscar-type movies. He makes small intimate pictures so it makes sense that “Boyhood” would lose to the much showier “Birdman”. It’s not that “Birdman” is a bad film. It simply isn’t nearly as profound as it thinks it is while “Boyhood” will stick with me for years.

BEST DIRECTOR

Wes Anderson – “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Alejandro G. Iñárritu – “Birdman”
Richard Linklater – “Boyhood”
Bennett Miller – “Foxcatcher”
Morten Tyldum – “The Imitation Game”

WHO SHOULD WIN – Wes Anderson

WHO WILL WIN – Alejandro Iñárritu

MOST CRIMINAL OMISSION – Christopher Nolan (“Interstellar”)

BREAKDOWN – This is perhaps the most intriguing category of the night. Part of me would love to see Richard Linklater win for his remarkable and intensely personal achievement. But suddenly I find myself rooting for Wes Anderson. Much like Linklater, he doesn’t make films that normally attract Oscar votes outside of the screenplay categories. That’s a shame because “Budapest” is a movie that continues to grow on me. So this category belongs to Iñárritu. For some reason the visual side of directing seems to be what is often awarded these days, and the visual presentation was certainly the strong point of “Birdman”.

BEST ACTOR

Steve Carrell – “Foxcatcher”
Bradley Cooper – “American Sniper”
Benedict Cumberbatch – “The Imitation Game”
Michael Keaton – “Birdman”
Eddie Redmayne – “The Theory of Everything”

WHO SHOULD WIN – Michael Keaton

WHO WILL WIN – Michael Keaton

MOST CRIMINAL OMISSION – Jake Gyllenhaal (“Nightcrawler”)

BREAKDOWN – This is another category that seems to have tightened up in the last few weeks. I have always loved Michael Keaton and it’s been great seeing him back on the big screen getting some significant roles. I’m definitely rooting for him and at one point he seemed like a slam dunk. But Eddie Redmayne seems to be gaining momentum and some people have him picked as their winner. I just can’t see him overcoming Keaton’s early established lead, and if Redmayne were to win it be a huge surprise.

BEST ACTRESS

Marion Cotillard – “Two Days, One Night”
Felicity Jones – “The Theory of Everything”
Julianne Moore – “Still Alice”
Rosamund Pike – “Gone Girl”
Reese Witherspoon – “Wild”

WHO SHOULD WIN – Marion Cotillard

WHO WILL WIN – Julianne Moore

MOST CRIMINAL OMISSION – Marion Cotillard (“The Immigrant”)

BREAKDOWN – This is one category that I can’t be completely objective about. I still haven’t seen “Still Alice”. But Marion Cotillard never ceases to amaze me. She is one of the most naturally gifted actresses I have ever seen and her work in “Two Days, One Night” is a shining example of her immense talent. I have no doubt that Moore does a great job, but I have a hard time believing anyone could beat what Cotillard gave us in two different 2014 performances.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Patricia Arquette – “Boyhood”
Laura Dern – “Wild”
Keira Knightley – “The Imitation Game”
Emma Stone – “Birdman”
Meryl Streep – “Into the Woods”

WHO SHOULD WIN – Patricia Arquette

WHO WILL WIN – Patricia Arquette

MOST CRIMINAL OMISSION – Agata Kulesza (“Ida”)

BREAKDOWN – Aside from Meryl Streep’s ridiculous nomination, this is a pretty intriguing list. It’s also another category that I think the Academy is going to get right. Arquette is such a pivotal ingredient to what made “Boyhood” so special. In many ways she is the film’s centerpiece. I always enjoy a little intrigue and suspense when it comes to awarding Oscars. This is one case where I’m glad there is no question and the winner is a sure thing.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Robert Duvall – “The Judge”
Ethan Hawke – “Boyhood”
Edward Norton – “Birdman”
Mark Ruffalo – “Foxcatcher”
J.K. Simmons – “Whiplash

WHO SHOULD WIN – Ethan Hawke

WHO WILL WIN – J.K. Simmons

MOST CRIMINAL OMISSION – Robert Pattinson (“The Rover”)

BREAKDOWN – The winner of this category is as certain as death and taxes. J.K. Simmons should have a place cleared off on his mantle because there is no way anyone else in this category has a shot at winning. Simmons is a guy everyone likes so it’s hard not to be happy for him. Personally I would love to see Hawke get the nod here. He is the perfect fit for his flaky but well-intentioned character in Boyhood and many of the film’s best scenes were the ones he was in.

So there you have my picks for who should win and who will win along with a few glaring omissions that I’m sure will shame the Academy to no end. So what do you think of my take on tomorrow night’s Oscars? Where did I get it wrong? Who do you have as the winners? Share your thoughts in the comments section below and we will see how we did on Monday.

THE END

Movie Bloggers Roundtable

BANNER

The Movie Bloggers Roundtable is a feature where I join up with four esteemed movie bloggers and we share our thoughts on a certain subject. Everyone on the panel will share their thoughts and feelings on the topic of the day and then we want to hear from you. The panel may change from post to post and hopefully we will get a wide range and interesting mix of opinions and perspectives.

Today’s roundtable discussion is inspired by Oscar season and specifically the controversy surrounding the lack of racial diversity among the nominees. The opinions and reactions to this has been fascinating and I have asked an amazing group of bloggers who I greatly respect to share their thoughts. Joining today’s roundtable is Courtney from Cinema Axis, Stu from Popcorn Nights, and Jaina from Time Well Spent. Now without hesitation I can say that I LOVE THESE BLOGS and if you haven’t been checking out their sites you should. So lets get to this week’s question:

Should the Academy be obligated to include racial diversity in their Oscar nominations?

The 85th Academy Awards® will air live on Oscar® Sunday, February 24, 2013.

Keith (Keith & the Movies)

For me the the key word is “include”. The simplest answer is no, the Academy shouldn’t be made to include racial diversity in their nominations. Obviously doing so would put stipulations on nominations that aren’t based on the quality of the films. For an Academy Award to carry any kind of weight it needs to be based on the very best in the category. To require nominations based solely on racial diversity bleeds the award of its respectability. Nominations should be given due to merit. So the Oscars shouldn’t be obligated to ‘include’ racial diversity, but they should be obligated to ‘consider’ films which represent racial diversity. All films should be considered and failure to do that would show a deeper Oscar problem.

Why wasn’t there more diversity in this year’s batch of Oscar nominees. Many have pointed to “Selma” director Ava DuVernay’s omission as the most egregious example of racial oversight. I disagree. I actually feel a couple of her creative decisions hold the film back. On the other hand I was disappointed to see the phenomenal David Oyelowo miss a nomination. But it’s hard to be too upset when favorites of mine Ralph Fiennes and Jake Gyllenhaal where also left out. But several hefty accusations have been lobbed at the same Academy who just gave “12 Years a Slave” a host of nominations and some big wins. Personally I see no merit in the claims and I think the problem may lie in other often overlooked areas.

Could it be the bigger problem may be found in Hollywood instead of the Academy directly? Where are the actors, actresses, and directors from diverse backgrounds? Are they being given the same opportunities? Are their projects being given the same attention and studio support? Is there enough encouragement for minority groups to venture into the creative world of cinematic expression? These are just a few questions that have potential eye-opening answers. And that’s just with Hollywood. Sometimes we as moviegoers contribute to the problem by restricting our senses to what is good cinema. We become complacent and comfortable within our own cinematic perceptions. In essence we do more to contribute to the problem than help resolve it.

Requiring the Academy to include racial diversity in their nominations not only lessens the awards themselves, but it cheapens the accomplishments of the filmmakers and casts doubt on their inclusion in the categories. That does nothing to solve an issue that is worthy of inspection and consideration. I believe the solution can be found in introspection, receptiveness, and honesty. And filmmakers, studios, and moviegoers should encourage cinematic expression from a diverse range of racial perspectives. Don’t point fingers at the Oscars. Let’s first hold up a mirror to ourselves and the filmmaking industry itself.

Courtney (Cinema Axis)

This is actually a pretty complex issue to tackle. The easy answer is no. There should not be any obligations to ensure that the nominations are racially diverse. Not only would this cheapen the entire award process, but it would have a far more damaging impact in the long run. It creates a world where each nomination involving an individual of a particular ethnic background would be unfairly scrutinized. Claims of affirmative action pandering would hang around the nomination like a noose around the Oscar statue’s neck, regardless of whether the nomination was warranted or not.

It is no secret that the Academy Awards have had a spotty history when it comes to diversity in the films and talents they nominate each year. If I can look at it from a black perspective for a moment, over the course of its 87 years only a handful of films featuring a predominately black cast or centered on a black protagonist have been nominated for Best Picture. These films include Beast of the Southern Wild, The Color Purple, Precious, The Blind Side, Django Unchained, 12 Years a Slave, and Selma. Of the seven films mentioned, three (Precious, 12 Years of Slave, Selma) would not have been made without the support of high powered celebrities (Brad Pitt and Oprah Winfrey) backing the projects as producers. These films point to the real problem with the film industry…the lack of support for racially diverse projects. If the industry was more diverse on the whole, including more women and people of various ethnicities in higher positions within the studio system, there would be more of a push to tell diverse stories.

As the rise of the foreign box office market has giving studios a new life raft to hold onto in time of worldwide economic uncertainty, studios now more than ever are pushing films that have “global” appeal. A polite way of saying films that feature predominately white cast in the leads. The funny thing about all this is that Hollywood has become increasingly concerned with having box office hits in China yet they are still not casting Asians in leading roles for their blockbuster films.

Conventional wisdom says that as long as a film is well-made and entertaining it should make a killing wherever it plays, but Hollywood does not work this way. Studios still have an old school mentality when it comes to the film industry, and let’s not forget it is a business first and foremost. If the Selma controversy proved anything, the Academy Awards are as much, if not more so, about the marketing campaigns as it is about achievements in filmmaking. The fact that Selma even got nominated for Best Picture is an achievement in itself. Not only did Ana DuVernay finish the film at the last minute, by Academy deadline standards, but the studio did not get is marketing campaign started in time. The reason she did not receive a Best Director nomination is primarily because the members of the Director’s Guild, most of whom have a vote in the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, did receiver screeners for the film.

One assumes that the first major studio film about an important figure like Martin Luther King Jr. would have voters rushing to theatres, but the Academy Awards does not work that way. It all comes down to which horse studios decide to back and how quickly their stead can get to the front of the pack in the awards race. If there was more diversity within the studios on the whole, companies would start producing and backing projects that are both diverse in its contents and in the people who help to bring them to the big screen.

 

Stu (Popcorn Nights)

I would say that the answer, for me at least, is a very simple one: the Academy shouldn’t be obligated to include racial diversity in the Oscar nominations, as all categories should simply be judged on merit. Whether that’s what actually happens in practice is anyone’s guess; I’ve always assumed that’s what this shadowy cabal of aging white supremacists industry movers and shakers are doing, anyway, but perhaps I’m way too trusting.

The statistics – whether we’re talking representation of black actors and directors among this year’s nominees, for example, or the race and gender bias among the Academy’s predominantly white and male voters – are simply more general indicators of the issue that really matters, and that’s the overwhelming dominance of the US film industry by white males (whether that’s ‘films funded by’, ‘films directed by’, ‘films produced by’, ‘films starring’, ‘films targeted at’ or ‘profits enjoyed and snorted by’). The problem isn’t really the fact that – for example – Ava DuVernay hasn’t been nominated for an Oscar for her direction of Selma, the real scandal is that it’s still something of a notable achievement for a black, female (or just ‘black’, or just ‘female’) director to get a film made and distributed on this scale in 2014 (though, suspiciously, it certainly seems to be easier if you’re making a film about racial conflict or slavery). Ultimately, if the typical yearly output of major Hollywood studios doesn’t change we’re stuck with this semi-regular diversity kerfuffle, as those voting can only pick from the films and the individuals that are put in front of them for judging.

As much as I get caught up in the fuss when awards season gets underway I think way too much stock is put in the biggest ceremony of them all. As this article succinctly points out the Academy has long been out of touch, and being ignored doesn’t necessarily affect a film’s cultural impact or its shelf life, which I would argue are more important factors than any individual or collective ego boosts, however valuable they may be for your career longevity. Perhaps if I was David Oyelowo, though, and I’d put everything I had into an incredible acting performance, I might think differ.

Jaina (Time Well Spent)

Interesting question!

The Academy should be obliged to include what is of merit. Regardless of race or gender or whatever else separates us as human beings. These awards are meant to be about the films and the people involved in the making of these films. Including racial diversity almost feels like something slightly racist – a case of having to include your quota for the case of racial diversity. Positive racism would be a bi-product out of this obligation. Then they’d be even more reason to question the Oscar nominations.

Truth be told, I’m very cynical on the subject of the Academy awards in general – how they work in terms of nominations and who eventually wins. So I’m not even sure if an obligation to include racial diversity would do anything positive but breed more discontent

BANNER
I want to thank Courtney, Stu, and Jaina for participating in this fourth Movie Bloggers Roundtable. You have heard our thoughts, now we want to hear yours. Do you like the feature? More importantly, what do you think about the discussion and concerns over the Oscars and racial diversity among the nominees? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below.