Most Picture
Last night, Tabitha and I hosted an Oscar-watching party. We ended up with 19 people in our living room, which was a lot of fun.
Despite the naysayers, I think Jon Stewart was the best host yet. The awards themselves were tame and enjoyable as usual.
Although I think Philip Seymour Hoffman is a brilliant character actor, I was disappointed that Joaquin Phoenix didn't win. He may have picked some lame scripts in the past ("Swing Away, Merrill"), but like his dead older brother was quickly becoming, Joaquin is a movie star.
I think everyone agrees that the biggest surprise of the night was Best Picture, the producers' Oscar that I hope to win someday. I imagine most people were surprised that Brokeback Mountain didn't win, which as you know I was glad about. But I was surprised that neither of my top two films won.
My friend Mark always says that Best Picture should be called Most Picture, since the movie that usually wins is simply the biggest production or the film with the grandest theme. He uses this to explain why movies such as Titanic or Gladiator win.
But I love huge movies. And I think there should be an award for Best Production (the original name for the Best Picture Oscar). This year, the film that I think clearly embodies the most picture principle was Munich, and it didn't win a single award.
Comments
When Joaquin finally wins the oscar, as far as I am concerned, it will be retro-active for Signs. You M. Night hating mofo.
Posted by: M. Scott Veach | March 6, 2006 7:46 PM
that will only happen after m. night goes back, a la evil spielberg, and replaces all utterances of "swing away, merrill" with the word "walkie-talkie."
Posted by: aleem | March 8, 2006 11:06 PM
Do you think Munich was passed over because of controversy over the content? It was criticized for changing the story to make make the protgonists question the utility and morality of the killings and also for making the terrorist targets look too sympathetic. One of my colleagues tells me that the actual people who took part in these killings say they had no qualms at all about what they did. (The moral discomfort of the Eric Bana character was the aspect of the film that didn't really work for me dramatically. It was not convincingly done from my point of view.)
But . . . if Spielberg had not put that twist on the story and had instead made a conventional thriller about people killing targets who "needed killing" he would have been criticized (by some) for glorifying murder.
The movie makes clear that Israel is not the only country sending out assassination squads - the characters run into operatives from other countries and non-governmental groups. (The procedural aspect of the business was the most fascinating pert of the film for me, both the techniques they used and the characters they met.)
Did Spielberg mean to start a public dialogue about the propriety of this? If so, it hasn't happened. Apparently, most people would rather not seriously discuss this. As a criminal prosecutor, I find it an interesting phenomena. For instance, if a government agent with a "license to kill" from his government is arrested in another country and charged with murder, can his government mission be used as a defense? Could his government go to the government of the arresting country (the U.S. for example) and persuade that government to call off the prosecution because the killer was carrying out a policy supported by both governments? It could be a claim of executive privilege. (In the movie, of course, the agents were assured that nothing like this would happen, their government would deny any knowledge of them.)
Anyway, it was a fascinating and thought provoking movie even though some aspects of it didn't work for me dramatically.
Posted by: Patrick Moran | March 19, 2006 2:39 PM
Check out the discussion I had with a bartender the other night: http://nettertainment.blogspot.com/2006/03/whoops.html
Posted by: Mark Netter | March 21, 2006 5:06 PM