Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Who we won't be seeing on the red carpet

2008 was a pretty good year for movies, which means that my glance over the Golden Globe nominations for this year involved less annoyance and/or confusion than usual. Of course, there are always a fair number of films listed that haven't come out in Australia yet, or that have only just come out, and then the handful that are possibly quite good but I just have no interest in seeing. All this put together means that, in a number of cases, I just can't comment on how well-deserved the nominations are (although my cynicism does kick in with certain obvious choices - "Revolution Road" anyone?).

There were a few, though, that I was very happy to see listed - Danny Boyle's latest triumph, "Slumdog Millionaire", which, a few years ago, would have been my idea of a perfect film: a Danny Boyle movie set in India. And it was pretty close to perfect. There was also David Fincher's most recent offering, the odd, imperfect but dazzling "Benjamin Button" which stayed in my head for some time after seeing it. Nominations like this are so clearly well-deserved and completely unsurprising. Both films have been very well-received and are already in IMDB's Top 100 - which simply means a lot of immediate hype and excitement, but I suspect they'll both be stayers. Though I might be wrong.

I was also happy to see that one of the absolute highlights of the year for me, Ari Folman's animated documentary "Waltz With Bashir", got a guernsey for Best Foreign Film. The Foreign Film category has always allowed scope for odd, eccentric and arty films, and "Bashir" is all of these, as well as deeply, deeply disturbing. It got nominated, but it almost certainly won't win. They'll give it to something more inspiring - though another highlight of my '08 viewing, "The Counterfeitors", managed to win the Foreign Film Oscar last year, despite being far from inspiring. There's hope, I suppose.

Of course, you can't expect the Globes to really reflect the state of cinema. How they nominate what they nominate remains a mystery to me. The Oscars, of course, are notorious for the "campaigns" that they expect f0r films to be nominated. The wonderful Hal Hartley once said that he had absolutely no idea how to launch an Oscar campaign and no desire to do so. I doubt the Academy would pay any attention to Hal if he did campaign for his films, but it's nice to know that the feeling is mutual.

Another thing: the "major" film awards tend to like films that seem "important" or "worthy". They like films like "Benjamin Button" because they have star power, big studio money behind them AND the sense that they are artistically significant. In a few cases (ie. "Benjamin Button"), those factors all coincide to make a great movie. But they often don't. And there are many great movies, and very important and worthy movies, that don't have Sam Mendes directing them or Kate and Leo starring in them, that the Academy will pay no attention to, even if every Guild and Critic's Circle applauds them till their hands hurt. This year's great disgrace was Thomas McCarthy's magnificent film, "The Visitor". Films don't get much more "important" or "worthy" than this one, but it remains what it's main character is at the end: loud, earnest, righteously angry drumming that no-one stops and listens to. More's the pity. For me, it was the best film of the year.

No comments: