Oscar nominees: old-fashioned films no match for indie darlings

Paramount, distributor of David O. Russell's The Fighter, celebrated the helmer's Best Director Oscar nomination by placing a "For Your Consideration" ad on the cover of Variety, touting him as "the comeback of the year." It was an odd choice of phrasing, considering that The Fighter, Russell's first feature to net any Oscar nominations, is by far his biggest success. What is he coming back to?

Prognosticators of the Academy Awards, which will be broadcast this Sunday, had presumed that Russell's slot would go to Inception mastermind Christopher Nolan — who Russell reportedly put in a headlock at a Hollywood party in 2003. Such stories about Russell's bad behavior have overshadowed his films, most of which have drawn mixed reviews and lost money. The Fighter seems like less of a return than a rebirth: a calculated, successful attempt by Russell to remake himself as a filmmaker capable of working quietly within the Hollywood establishment.

The fact that this problem child is a contender for the highest honor in his field could be taken as evidence that the Academy establishment is changing. Though several Oscar-feted members of the old guard made films in 2010 — Eastwood, Polanski, Scorsese — the Academy ignored them in favor of work by comparative youngsters (at 56, Joel Coen is the oldest director of a Best Picture nominee), most of whom launched their careers at Sundance and via other indie-film conduits.

The Fighter
The Fighter

Six of this year's ten Best Picture nominees were made by filmmakers who had early career breakouts at Sundance: the Coen brothers in the '80s; Darren Aronofsky, Lisa Cholodenko, and Russell in the '90s; Debra Granik and Nolan in the '00s. Two others, David Fincher and Danny Boyle, who established cult bona fides with late-'90s Zeitgeist-definers, have been recognized by the Academy only fairly recently (the former for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the latter for Slumdog Millionaire). Rounding out the roster are two non-indie vets: Lee Unkrich, whose Toy Story 3 was the highest-grossing film of 2010, and Tom Hooper, the 38-year-old British director of The King's Speech with a TV-heavy resume who enjoys a unique advantage: the full support of Harvey Weinstein. After several years barely in the game, Weinstein, with The King's Speech, has his first likely Best Picture win since Chicago (2002).

It may be a return to glory of a sort, but, as with Russell's, Weinstein's very good year represents a "comeback" that reeks of compromise. The King's Speech is closer to the turn-of-the-millennium Miramax pap — think Chocolat — that Weinstein managed to get nominated by his typically aggressive approach than to the risk-taking titles on which he built his reputation (Sex, Lies, and Videotape; Pulp Fiction). Weinstein's safe bet with The King's Speech arguably shafted his company's two other late-year prestige films, Blue Valentine and The Company Men. Fully endorsing the stark, time-fractured marital drama Blue Valentine might have challenged Academy members to evolve; instead, Weinstein got behind the film that conforms to Academy voters' conservative, sentimental tastes.

The combination of Anglophilia, historical "importance," and capital-A "Acting!" makes The King's Speech a likely Best Picture shoo-in, irresistible to the same voting body that fell for the milquetoast charms of 1998's Shakespeare in Love — Weinstein's most controversial Oscar victory. The comparative quality of much darker nominated films such as Black Swan, Inception, and The Social Network might be debatable, but, at the very least, these are cerebral movies built around questionably sympathetic antiheroes, with polarizing conclusions — which likely puts them at a disadvantage. The King's Speech is about the entwined victories of overcoming a personal disability to conquer Nazis, and its uplifting final scenes reliably jerk tears. Academy history suggests that wet eyes guarantee more ballots than ambiguous endings — and who's to say that emotional response isn't valid?

But a victory for The King's Speech would still be dispiriting. For all the evidence that 2010's nominees offer that Hollywood has been fundamentally changed by a new generation of auteurs, Academy consensus will likely reward the least innovative, most old-fashioned film. That one best embodies the middlebrow sensibility that other Best Picture nominees, and the indie institutions that nurtured their makers, try to defy.

My Voice Nation Help

So I'm guessing Karina Longworth didn't like The King's Speech. Correction: I'm guessing Karina Longworth HATED The King's Speech. Correction: I'm guessing Karina Longworth has a personal vendetta against The King's Speech and everything it stands for.

I personally liked the movie quite a bit, and if Colin Firth's performance qualifies as "capital-A 'Acting!'" then so do the central performances in the alleged "innovative" directors' films, including Natalie Portman, Christian Bale, Hailie Steinfeld, etc. If "true acting" means an actor must always underplay emotions and never include speech impediments, mental defects or any other such characteristics in a performance, then the art of acting is dead and we're in for some pretty dull movies ahead.

True, The King's Speech is far from innovative -- it's essentially the "Rocky" of public speaking. But Rocky -- if you haven't seen it lately -- is an outstanding film. Not innovative, but beautifully made (and for my money, a better film than The Fighter, which I liked quite a bit). As for innovation, though, none of the other nominated movies this year are really all that innovative either, with the possible exception of Inception and parts (but not all) of The Black Swan. The Fighter breaks no new ground, it's just a well-made film about interesting characters in a working-class setting. True Grit is one of the most mainstream -- if not THE most mainstream -- of the Coen Brothers' films. Winter's Bone is in no way innovative except maybe for the locale its story is set in and the kind of characters it explores -- the filmmaking, while very good, is hardly groundbreaking. I guess The Social Network is "innovative" in the way it -- no, there's not really much innovative there either, except maybe the score -- it's just got some wonderful acting (with a lower-case a, I guess) and some fantastic writing and very capable direction.

There is, however, something wonderfully subversive in a buttoned-down Anglophilic period drama that builds a key plot point around the F-word, and something beautifully poignant about a scene in which a monarch reveals private details of his childhood to, of all people, a speech therapist, while indulging in a pleasure that has remarkably eluded him all his life: gluing pieces of a model airplane together.

Furthermore, I would say there's something horribly closed-minded about critics who assume that just because a movie takes place in the 1930s with British actors playing well-dressed aristocratic characters, that the film automatically has little or nothing of merit. Out-of-the-box thinking is not merely the goal of filmmakers -- it's also sometimes required of filmgoers as well.

All in all, if The King's Speech won a Best Picture Oscar on Sunday...I'd be just fine with that.


Now Showing

Find capsule reviews, showtimes & tickets for all films in town.

Box Office Report

Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!