"Several months and several viewings later, I’m still waiting for that next universe to kick in, still trying to see the lasting greatness that so many others see in this admirably ambitious, wildly idiosyncratic and maddeningly overwrought movie. Funnily enough, though “Everything Everywhere” doesn’t strike me as remotely the best movie of the year,"- Justin Chang, LA Times film critic, today (p. A1)
The Best Picture award at the Oscars last night should have been the proverbial 'no brainer' - but once again (like last year with 'Coda'), the Academy blew it. Instead of selecting the dazzling, big screen science fiction epic 'Avatar- The Way Of Water' the overthinking eggheads picked the "wacko breakout" (LA Times writer's words): Everything Everywhere All at Once.
This bizarre brain bender featured a "multiverse" setting and a female protagonist with 70 different versions of herself in different roles. By the end of the evening it had racked up seven awards, including both supporting actor/actress Oscars, Best Director and Best Actress.
Two days earlier, we were informed in the WSJ Review section ('Readers Pick The Oscars', p. B4) that:
"While Gen Z and millennials
predicted “Avatar” would win best picture, members of Gen X aligned with baby
boomers in being far less likely to choose it for the top award. The two older
generations in the survey were more likely to put their bets on “Elvis” and
“Top Gun.”
Vast weight needs to be awarded for the sheer product quality, especially what the movie accomplished, i.e.
His (Cameron's) movie set new screen standards for just about everything – including its novel cgi format and a 3D which for once really looked the part (we saw it twice and are thinking of going again) Indeed, Jim Cameron didn’t just make a sci-fi flick but broke NEW ground for what is sure to be a series of Real D-3D movies that will no doubt help Hollywood survive many more lean years as we climb out of recession. And how did Hollywood’s Movie Academy of Arts and Sciences pay him back? With a slap in the face – which was more like a gut punch.
The subsequent takeaway of many critics of the award, was that the Academy had caved to Right media talking points about Cameron's film echoing the failed U.S. intrusion into South Vietnam- beaten back by sandal clad peasants. Also, the Rightists' attacks on the Left for "wanting to pull out of Afghanistan" at the time. Thus the Academy's minions caved to pressure and gave the supreme award to the war flick, 'Hurt Locker'.
Last night was a chance to set the record and history straight but it was muffed again. (Though Janice and I did agree that in the absence of the 'Best Picture' Oscar to 'Way of Water' it ought to have gone to 'Tar'.)
Meanwhile, according to the WSJ, the over-hyped 'Everything Everywhere All at Once’ - mostly filmed over 6 days in an LA laundromat - scored high across many categories but had a low ranking for viewer enjoyment. Nearly 1 in 5 WSJ readers polled said it was “too confusing." I will second that judgment right now. And to quote one of the early negative reviews (I believe in the NY Times) one "needed to almost be on an LSD trip to appreciate it."
Which leads me to ask how it managed to grab so many awards. What was it, exactly? The presence of so many Asian actors (including the talented Michelle Yeoh) and the need for Hollywood to vindicate the value of diversity? The Multiverse concept? That could have done vastly better and actually was - in the final instalment of the superb sci-fi series 'The Man In The High Castle'.
OTOH, if as LA Times' movie critic (Justin Chang, see top link below) argues the story is "as traditional as they come" (about family, mother & daughter relationship), then why use the distracting multiverse backstory? Makes no sense. Even keeping the narrative to two parallel universes - as opposed to 70 - might have allowed more audience appreciation. Just sayin'. (Full disclosure: I am not a Hollywood film guru, expert or remote member of the Oscar cognoscenti.)
It is interesting that both 'Top Gun - Maverick' (which garnered one award) and Avatar (which also grabbed one for visual effects) were seen by us on the big screen. (Avatar 3D twice). 'Elvis' we watched on HBO Max via our big box (LCD) home TV, along with 'Tar' (on PPV), 'Banshees of Inisherin' (HBO), The Fablemans (PPV), and 'Everything, Everywhere All At Once' (Showtime). We agreed that each of these was best seen on our big screen TV as opposed to the theater.
The WSJ piece noted, regarding the other films:
"Visually muted, many of these films are also thorny in ways that don’t say date and popcorn; they say couch, Netflix and drizzly, contemplative afternoons. They’re gloomy — and, like moody teenagers, also difficult. The Banshees of Inisherin” is also largely deprived of color. Set on a fictional Irish island, it doesn’t stint on green, but much of it is the color of a pint of stout.
“Tár,” about the demise of an ethically gnarly conductor played by
Cate Blanchett, is suffused with stylish navy and taupe. The conductor’s
cerebral pursuits, complicated interior life and international dangerous
liaisons will be relatable to precisely no one, unless you’re Sylvia Plath or
maybe Virginia Woolf."
The "visually muted" aspects applied to all the films except 'Elvis', which again reinforced our decision to reserve our cinema screen experience for the blockbusters. It's a pity that in the current cinema- Oscars era there is still this bifurcation between what the public wants to go to see (and enjoys!) , and what Hollywood's academy of screen artists believe is worthwhile. There may be a reason for that, as the WSJ article framed it:
"These “small” brainy films are the nominees that gave this year’s Academy Awards a reputation for featuring a raft of movies that no one saw. Indeed, “Tár” and “Women Talking” have generated more critical disquisitions than packed theaters."
Or, in the words of one LA Times columnist (3/11, p. A1):
"The more challenging films, by
contrast, are now streaming films, made to be watched in the lonely hours, with
breaks to get snacks and think over hard scenes, offering more complexity and
less eye candy."
See Also:
Chang: Oscars’ best picture might seem radical. But it’s as traditional as they come
And:
No comments:
Post a Comment