At the 93rd Oscars many injustices were corrected, this year the number of women and the number of "coloured" increased, this was a year of activism, but also a year of objective awards, and yet the euphoria was absent. Life overlapped with the film, but audiences are still searching for Hollywood. We have to admit that there is something in the dreams…
The triumph of the film "Nomadland" was expected and absolutely deserved, however, it did not bring that real triumph, nor the famous euphoria, when it comes to "Oscars". And that has nothing to do with the Covid-pandemic, nor with the fact that the "Oscars" had to be held in a completely different way. No, that has changed, or perhaps just come to the fore, are the expectations of the general public, who obviously perceive these famous Hollywood awards as glamour and attraction. Therefore, it was a surprise, but probably a reality, when on the Croatian television on the famous channel RTL it could be heard that the most boring film from last year won the Oscar and that this was the most boring ceremony, which those who had to watch could not stand up to watch it to the end???
"Nomadland" was a challenge for Hollywood
What has changed, Hollywood or people's expectations of it? Or maybe vice versa, the expectations are the same, the audience still loves dreams, still seems to want to escape from reality, at least through the film, the audience still loves the stars, but the "real" ones, still wants to see that perfectly packaged a Hollywood product, no matter how much it seems to have been criticized. Everyone knew they were dreams, but still, they enjoyed and wanted to see them. People still love movies with heroes, winners and the satisfaction, which they can rarely get in life. Neither before nor today, real stories and engaging films haven’t been as widely watched, as praised and rewarded by critics and the jury. Even today, everyone knows well what is meant by "festival films", and it can often be heard about this year's films that were nominated and awarded, that they belong to the so-called festival films, which in recent years have given Hollywood a completely different tone and, of course, contribute to its (un) viewing.
And this year, the peak was reached in that glance. It seems that this year there were the most engaged films, not only in the main categories, but also when it comes to documentaries and animations, life stories, real problems, social issues, violence, inequality, racism, injustice prevailed everywhere. And that was not all. It was a year of breaking down barriers and a year of precedents, when the American Film Academy sought to redress the many "injustices" that had attacked it for years, as a result of a campaign launched several years ago to accuse “that the Oscars are so white. "
What happened this year? Indeed, many injustices were corrected, this year at the "Oscars" there were numerous authors from around the world who were often neglected, this year the number of women and the number of "coloured" increased, this year was a year of film activism, but also a year when the awards were very objective, yet the euphoria was absent. Life overlapped with the film, but audiences are still searching for Hollywood. We must admit that there is something in the dreams...
Chadwick Boseman
But let's go back to the awards and the night of the "Oscars". It is interesting that the triumph with the three "Oscars" won went to "Nomadland", what, after all the awards and nominations that this film has received, was expected, and yet, the whole situation around this film is unusual. Indeed, the facts are impressive, that Chinese-American director Chloe Zhao is the second woman in the history of the 93-year-old Oscars to win a directing award (the first and only one so far was Catherine Bigelow for “The Hurt Locker”), that this year for the first time two women were nominated for a directorial award. Chloe Zhao is also the first Chinese or Asian director to receive the award, etc., etc.
But, what is unusual, is the attitude towards the film itself. Although it has received all the recognitions, many resent him and want to see him only as a social story, which it is not. From there that misunderstanding, the objections to the movie's attitude towards “Amazon”, the objections to portraying people as smiling, happy and satisfied, but the truth is that Chloe Zhao is not making a social film. Although Fern's main character and destiny are like that, the story is dedicated to real nomads and a completely different philosophy of life. After all, Zhao is making the film based on the book by journalist Jessica Bruder, who lived with American nomads for three years and many of them are involved in the film. So, this is not a film that criticizes the American social system and social policy, but it is much more than that. Therefore, it seems that Chloe Zhao's statement that the film is dedicated to all those who have the faith and courage to keep the good in themselves and to others, is quite adequate, and the awards for best film, best director and the role of Francis McDormand, are fully justified and deserved.
Carrey Mulligan - when a woman becomes a wolf in lamb skin
That’s how it was absolutely with their appearance, their posture and behavior. Neither Chloe Zhao nor Francis McDormand, although winning her third Oscar, behave or feel like a star. They both came in simple clothes and without any make-up. They are simply soaked in the essence of what they are talking about in the film. That's why McDormand had such a performance when she won the "Oscar" again, saying only that her voice is her sword, and that sword is her job, repeating the statement from the film, that she wants to work.
It was their strong message, the belief in work, in people, in goodness, in courage and freedom, in the choice to be one's own, when it is almost impossible (as they say and show in this extraordinary film). "Nomadland" did not have that Hollywood triumph, even the victory was real and normal, because it is a film about life, about the life that surrounds us and about our (un)readiness for come to grips with it. "Nomadland" marked the "Oscars", showing that Hollywood has changed, or at least should be. Because, when precedents become a rule or something normal, only then we will be able to talk about change and objectivity.
Anthony Hopkins is masterful in the role of a father suffering from dementia
And Emerald Fennell was not left without an award either, who together with Chloe Zhao won the historic nomination for directing, but Fennell received the award for the original screenplay of the film "Promising Young Woman". Fennel, in her own way, was equally courageous in making a rather unusual film about a girl taking revenge on men, directly inspired by the “Me Too” movement, but also by the abuse that has lasted for years and often speaks of wolves in lamb skin. This time Fennel will go the other way, how it would look like when the girl puts on her lamb skin ... Carrey Mulligan is a perfect choice, but this year the competition was really strong, especially in terms of roles. There were always the flawless Viola Davis, like the mother of the blues, Andra Day, who won the "Golden Globe" for the role of Billy Williams, as well as Vanessa Kirby, who entered the race with the Venice Award.
Francis McDormand and Chloe Zhao do not feel or act like stars
It was similar in the male role category, where everyone was convinced that this year's Oscar would be awarded posthumously to Chadwick Boseman (1976-2020) for his role as the trumpeter in “Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom”. Even, for the first time this year, the order was changed, so instead of the best film, in the end was announced the winner for the best male role, which brought great confusion, but also a fiasco, because Anthony Hopkins was neither here nor online. But, that 83-year-old Anthony Hopkins's award for "Father" is well-deserved is unquestionable, because his virtuosity and masterfully, along with everything else in the film, screenwriting, directing, production design, made it a true masterpiece. And not coincidentally, this film takes the second place with the awards for the adapted screenplay by Florian Zeller and for the male role.
Youn Yuh-Jung and Brad Pitt
Indeed, as many as five films won two awards each year, but these were for the main categories. David Fincher's much-loved "Munk" received only two awards out of ten nominations, for production design and photography, which was quite realistic, although even these two awards could go to the other far better films. The independent film "Sound of Metal" also won two awards, same as "Judas and the Black Messiah" and "Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom", which set another precedent, the "Oscar" for make-up for the first time went to black women Mia Neal and Jamika Wilson.
This year everything was different, so using the selection and extremely engaged themes, and in conditions when everything had to be minimal, the producers, including Steven Soderbergh, decided the ceremony at the Dolby Theater and the train station in Los Angeles to take place like a movie. But not only physically, they also using the stories of the nominees about how they fell in love with the film or what it means to them, for example, to be a director. Unfortunately, few noticed it, even though it was quite inspiring. We have already said that the winners were different and talked much more about the essence, but the "Oscars" did not bring the right impression. You will wonder why? Probably because, firstly, precedents and barriers should really become the rule, not the exception, and secondly, because changing the established rules in Hollywood should be essential, not correcting injustices and, most importantly, the audience should be ready to accept them. Until then, it seems, Hollywood remains "stuck" in its own trap.
Kommentare