I read an article last week in THE NEW YORK TIMES in which A.O. Scott said the Academy Awards are not about the quality of the motion pictures that they honor, but rather "about how the American film industry thinks about itself, its future, its desires and ideals." Last night, as I sat fixated on the telecast, checking off my predictions, Mr. Scott's supposition really resonated with me. In fact, it transformed how I viewed the entire ceremony this year...
I contemplated - how would the Academy, and thus the entire film industry, choose to define itself this year? Would they favor technical prowess and unparalleled cinematic spectacle over smaller, more thought-provoking fare?
Well... As a film student who has tended to create by the mantra that "small, good things" are more satisfying and emotionally worthwhile, I found at least several of the ceremony's conclusions and revelations to be not only adequate, but actually fulfilling!
If last night's Oscars are truly an indication of how the film industry wishes to view itself, here are some reasons (plucked directly from my viewing of the telecast) that I would like to be a part of it:
Reason # 1
In the blurb that came before the Short Film awards were presented, John Lasseter said this: "The tools to make a film are so readily accessible - cameras, your laptop. My advice to young filmmakers is the tools never make a great film. It's what you do with the tools. Telling a great story, entertaining the audience - that's what's going to win you an Academy Award." Everybody that I watched the telecast with, including myself, hollered a hearty AMEN when Mr. Lasseter said this... Yet in my film school experience, this exact notion is something that continually gets overlooked. Many people believe that they can make an engaging movie with nothing more than some pretty images and some intense music. Okay... Their movies are beautiful, but they're empty and sterile... and they mean absolutely nothing. I want to be a member of a film community that values storytelling and making sense of the world through characters.
Reason #2
Over the summer, as part of an internship, I got to attend a lot of screenings at the National Audio Visual Conservation Center in Culpeper, Virginia. Part of their summer showings was a series entitled, "The Cinema of John Hughes". Up until this point in my life, I had written Mr. Hughes off as corny and belonging to the 80s, where (let's face it) movies just weren't as good. But then something happened...
One day, during my internship, I got to inspect a print of SIXTEEN CANDLES. Up until then, if I had to pick a favorite Hughes movie, it would have been this one, but that's really not saying much. However, as the film rolled along on the flatbed, I became more and more beguiled... and as the silly banter and impeccable teen angst continued, I realized that the movie inspired me waaaaay more than I had ever thought possible.
It's not some corny 80s movie to be written off as crap. It's a fantastic film that clenches the heart... and embodies the simple and extremely relatable idea that we all just want to be loved... and if we just take a deep breath and be ourselves, we'll get everything we wish for.
Needless to say, I have since re-visited a lot of Hughes' movies and witnessed others for the first time. The result? I've fallen in love.
Somebody like Jerry Bruckheimer won't get a tribute like the one they gave to John Hughes on the Oscars last night. I'd be willing to put money on it. My reasoning is this - films like the kind Bruckheimer makes aren't small, nor are they good. They don't reach an audience on the same emotional level that Hughes' movies do. It's emotion, not spectacle that makes for classic cinema... and for wonderful tributes at the Academy Awards.
(To Be Continued...)
No comments:
Post a Comment