A Decade of Oscar Winners: A Retrospective

This week, critics circles, guilds, and one group of drunken journalists all announce their nominees for various end-of-the-year awards. Suffice to say that, by Friday, we'll have a fairly clear picture of the Oscar race. I'll run a piece on that later this week, but for now, I'd like to just look back at the Academy. And how often they screw things up. Seriously. Rarely does Best Picture go to the actual best film of the year. Too often, the process becomes mired in politics, playing nice, buying votes, and scheduling woes. Which isn't to say that good movies can't win, of course. I'm just saying that the best films often don't. So, for your viewing pleasure, here are the best picture winners of the decade, along with the other nominees they built. I'll whine for a little about them (or compliment them, you never know), then offer up my own nominee slate. Fun times! 2008: Slumdog Millionaire Other nominees: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader I'll be honest; none of these nominees get me too excited. Slumdog is definitely the best among them (though The Reader has some great moments, and, admittedly, I liked Benjamin Button), but that's not saying a whole lot. Slumdog won because it was exactly what our country needed at the time: something fast, loud, and oozing optimism. It perfectly tapped into the zeitgeist surrounding Obama's election. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's a perfectly competent film. There just happened to be a bevy of other, more challenging, more advanced films for consumption. My nominees, in order of preference: 1. Waltz With Bashir 2. Synecdoche, New York 3. WALL-E 4. Let the Right One In 5. In Bruges 2007: No Country For Old Men Other Nominees: Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood How fantastic: We're only two years in, and I can't find anything to complain about! 2007 was one of the best years for film in recent memory; it would have been almost impossible to not nominate five great films, and any of the nominees could be a worthy champion in any other year. Essentially, 2007 was awesome. Nothing more so than No Country For Old Men; a film that showed the Coens at the absolute top of their game. Adroitly paced, almost unbearably taut, lean, and full of dark, cynical insight, No Country wasn't just the best of the year: it's one of the best winners of the decade. And I can't even complain about the other nominees. All of them are of the honor. My nominees: 1. No Country For Old Men 2. Sunshine 3. There Will Be Blood 4. Away From Her 5. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford 2006: The Departed Other Nominees: Babel, Letters From Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, The Queen This is tough: I can't say I agree that The Departed was the best film of the year, but it sure came close. It's certainly the best of the nominated films (though all of those, with the exception of Babel, carry my complete and total approval). Indeed, it's hard to deny the energy and forward motion of The Departed. Plus, it's Martin Frigging Scorsese. The Departed is a fantastic entry into the Academy Canon. My Nominees: 1. Children of Men 2. The Departed 3. Pan's Labyrinth 4. A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints 5. Letters From Iwo Jima 2005: Crash Other Nominees: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Goodnight and Good Luck, Munich Ahhh. Crash. Crash. This. Was. A. Travesty. I'm not saying that Crash doesn't have powerful moments, and I'm not saying that Crash isn't a very skillful manipulator. But that's just it: the movie is great at manipulating the viewer into thinking they're seeing something good, when what they're actually seeing is ham-fisted, obvious, and subtle as a sledgehammer. How it won out over ANY of the other nominees (all fantastic films) as well as other not-nominated greats is almost unfathomable. But especially winning over Brokeback Mountain or, to a lesser degree, Munich. Both are modern masterpieces, and are many heads and shoulders above Crash. The Academy certainly dropped the ball on this one. My Nominees: 1. Brokeback Mountain 2. Munich 3. A History of Violence 4. Capote 5. Junebug 2004: Million Dollar Baby Other Nominees: The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Ray, Sideways Here's another year where the slew of nominees did nothing for me. It's once again the case that the winner is the best of those offered, but it's not a hard accomplishment. The Aviator was technically proficient but dead inside, Finding Neverland was shallow ant smarmy, Ray was all about the lead performance, and Sideways, though loved by some, was found by this writer to be misogynistic, slow, and utterly pointless. Million Dollar Baby itself is minor Eastwood. It's not his best effort, but is better than his worst efforts. It's a movie-of-the-week. Watch it, feel sanctimonious, forget it. End of story. My Nominees: 1. Kill Bill 2. Undertow 3. Hotel Rwanda 4. Before Sunset 5. The Incredibles 2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King Other Nominees: Lost in Translation, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Mystic River, Seabiscuit I have trouble arguing with this one. As a stand-alone film, The Return of the King is strong, but not strong enough to win over the others. As a piece of a trilogy, and as a cinematic accomplishment, The Return of the King (and, really, The Lord of the Rings) is staggering work that's nearly impossible to ignore. And that's what the Academy did here: the Oscar wasn't for Return of the King. It was for The Lord of the Rings, and it's hard to compete with three films, even if the competition is as fantastic as the other nominees (with the notable exception of Seabiscuit, which made me try to eat my own tongue). My Nominees: 1. Lost in Translation 2. City of God 3. Mystic River 4. 28 Days Later 5. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World 2002: Chicago Other Nominees: Gangs of New York, The Hours, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Pianist How the hell did Chicago walk away with this? I'll be the first to admit that Chicago is entertaining and well-made. But it's little else. There's nothing challenging or new about the film. It makes you smile for a couple of hours, then is promptly forgotten. Admittedly two of the other nominees were uneven efforts (Gangs of New York and The Two Towers), and the other two were too depressing and cerebral for most viewers, but that's no excuse. The Pianist or The Hours would both have made far more deserving winners than Chicago. And I haven't even mentioned all the films that weren't nominated that were better than Chicago. Geez. My Nominees: 1. Y Tu Mama, Tambien 2. Minority Report 3. Adaptation 4. The Hours 5. Hable Con Ella 2001: A Beautiful Mind Other Nominees: Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, Moulin Rouge! ...I don't even want to talk to the Oscars right now. 2001 was a banner year for cinema, chock full of films that did new, bold things, played with content, form, style, films that revitalized dying genres, films that defied expectations, films with fascinating character studies, intense moments, and all general forms of greatness. And the winner was....A poorly made, slow-paced, shallow-minded biopic that has been seen 1,000 times before. Seriously, I think I saw A Beautiful Mind on Hallmark as a made-for-TV movie before it got a theatrical release. It's just embarrassing. All of the other nominees would have been incomparably better as winners than this perfect storm of idiocy. (Side note, but where the hell was Black Hawk Down when it came to voting time? How did it not make the cut?) My Nominees: 1. Black Hawk Down 2. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 3. Gosford Park 4. Moulin Rouge! 5. Memento 2000: Gladiator Other Nominees: Chocolat, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Erin Brokovich, Traffic Not a strong start to the decade, really. 2000 had some great films. Not many of them can be found in the nominees listed above. Gladiator is large, loud, and well-made. A great film it is not. Though, I understand that, out of the nominees, it was the only plausible winner: Chocolat and Erin Brokovich were flukes, Traffic was too clinical, and The Academy will burn in Hell before they give their top prize to a foreign-language film. But see, the solution to this problem is not to choose the lesser of five evils: it's to nominate the good films in the first place. Oh well. My Nominees: 1. Almost Famous 2. Billy Elliot 3. Requiem For a Dream 4. The Virgin Suicides 5. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon The 2000s: A fantastic decade for films. Not a fantastic decade for Academy Award winners. If I had to list the winners by my preference, it would be as follows: 1. The Departed 2. No Country For Old Men 3. The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King 4. Slumdog Millionaire 5. Gladiator 6. Million Dollar Baby 7. Chicago 8. Crash 9. A Beautiful Mind Honestly, only the first two have my first three have my complete approval. The next two are good enough, and then it's all downhill from there. And what's going to join this not-so-awe-inspiring list in March? The Hurt Locker. Please, please let it be The Hurt Locker. Finish the decade with a bang (pun not intended). Or who knows. I have lots of big, 'prestige' films left to see this year. Maybe Avatar. Maybe Up in the Air. Just...something good, OK Academy? What do you think? Am I being too hard on these winners? Are these nine films a collection of cinematic gems that will resonate throughout the ages? Let me know.

Dissecting Danny Boyle

Not literally, of course. Today, I'd like to take a good look at one of today's most interesting directors: you know him as the director of:

Slumdog Millionaire
Sunshine
Millions
28 Days Later...
The Beach
A Life Less Ordinary
Trainspotting
Shallow Grave

I'd like to think that enough of his films are iconic and well-seen enough for y'all to be able to follow along here, but you never know. For my part, I've seen all of them but A Life Less Ordinary and Shallow Grave, and I feel you can categorize them, quality-wise, in the following groups:

Out-and-out masterpieces, or as close as Boyle has gotten: 28 Days Later, Sunshine

Enjoyable, proficient, and (generally) good: Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting

Admirable Misfire: Millions

Just plain bad: The Beach

From what I hear, Shallow Grave finds itself in either the "enjoyable" or the "misfire" category, while A Life Less Ordinary drifts between "misfire" and "bad."

Danny Boyle's career has had a strange metamorphosis. With his debut film, Shallow Grave, Boyle earned accolades similar to Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs debut: some called it uneven, some called it a masterpiece, everyone agreed that this was a new director to watch. Boyle didn't disappoint with his follow-up, Trainspotting; though I may not love it as much as the next guy, the general consensus is that it's a modern masterpiece, and a classic of the new film movement. After having established himself as a competent director and an auteur of sorts, Danny Boyle then chose to throw it all away. His next two projects, The Beach and A Life Less Ordinary were large, messy studio productions, obviously aiming to please the most middling denominator. From here, Boyle learned his lesson: his next films, instead of attempting to be all things to all people, became very small, specific riffs on genre. He reinvented zombie horror with 28 Days Later, then mish-mashed inspirational family films with religious satire in Millions, had the gall to attempt "hard" science fiction in a post-2001 universe with Sunshine, and then took on the rags-to-riches tale with Slumdog Millionaire. Boyle has obviously hit his stride with this new career renaissance: one can only assume that he will continue his string of successes.

I find this Danny Boyle quote to be quite indicative of his style:
"...I like films that have a kind of vivacity to them. At this time of year you think about awards, and if you want to win one, you think you should make serious films, but my instinct is to make vivacious films." If there's one word to describe Boyle's films, it's vivacious. No director today makes use of such hyper-kinetic camera blocking. I don't mean this in a derogatory sense. Boyle is always supremely in control of his art, allowing the motion of the camera to enhance the motion of the film, all while knowing when to pause for breath and make use of uninterrupted takes and long shots. Most writers would hold up Slumdog Millionaire as the seminal example of Boyle's visual style, but I must dissent and suggest 28 Days Later instead. Slumdog is, indeed, full of motion and energy, but 28 Days Later has a propensity for tranquility that can be found liberally in Boyle's other films (most notably Sunshine and Millions) that is, on the whole, missing from Slumdog.
Boyle's style is made memorable through its motion, but I'd like to take a moment to think about the color schemes and impressionistic touches. Sunshine has the most easily defined color scheme (hint: everything is either orange or black, with brief sojourns for green), no doubt due to its single location (...space). Notice Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later, and Millions, however: Slumdog works mostly with shades of brown, orange and red, 28 Day Later is always muted, as if everything is lit by blue or gray shades, and Millions is open and friendly, full of primary colors, which is no doubt reflective of the worldview of its child protagonist. In my opinion, the color work is far more effective in creating and establishing a stylistic mood, regardless of the flashiness of the color-work.

Thematically, Danny Boyle is a bit more difficult to pin down. Here's another quote for you to ponder: "I want my films to be life-affirming...I want people to leave the cinema feeling that something's been confirmed for them about life." I can't say that he always succeeds: the false, happy ending tacked on to the end of The Beach did far more to lower my opinion of humanity than leaving the film blood-soaked and angry like it should have been. So it goes. I suppose, however, the point may not be in the end. Most of Boyle's films seemed singularly concerned with the audacity of the human spirit in the face of overwhelming adversity. Consider 28 Days Later: the end is not particularly inspiring. Focus instead, if you will, on the relationship between Frank and Hannah: a father who loves his daughter, doing his best to keep her safe. Or even Jim and Selena: despite everything happening around them, two people can fall in love and teach each other something about kindness. Now look at Sunshine: not the sunniest of endings (...I'm sorry, I had to) by any stretch of the imagination. What sticks out in my mind, however, is the selflessness shown by most of the crew. Sunshine plays for me like a parable for losing oneself in the drive to help the greater good, even at the expense of one's safety or one's life. And I certainly don't need to explain to you how Slumdog Millionaire relates to pushing on through adverse odds (seriously, does anyone think Jamal and Latika will actually work as a couple? At the end, after the dance, they walk out of the station, and I can't help but picturing Latika looking at Jamal and saying "...so what now?" After some sex and some very courageous shenanigans resulting in bringing about the destiny of two hungry stomachs and one very confused pizza, they're going to realize that the chase was far more interesting than the destination. Sorry, I digress). So, perhaps it is easy to define Boyle's main thematic conceit: his films concern the drive to move forward despite the desire to go back.

What's next for Danny Boyle? IMDB won't let me have a good look, but it seems his next project is called 127 Hours. I wish I could provide more details, but, as stated, IMDB tells me I'm not nearly important enough to look at its "in development" projects. Oh well. Some day, internet, some day. For now, however: what do you think of Danny Boyle? Worth all these wasted pixels or not? If you've seen some of his movies, go ahead and post your ranking of them in the comments. My ranking is as follows:
28 Days Later
Sunshine
Slumdog Millionaire
Trainspotting
Millions
The Beach

Where am I wrong?