Ok, the Oscars are done. Sarcastic Tweets have been sent all over the place, snarky film nerds have posted their opinions on Facebook and the most boring, yet most followed, award ceremony of the year has taken place.
Personally, i have nothing against the Oscars. When i was a kid, Italian TVs had a night broadcasting of the ceremony that i really looked forward to and obsessively recorded on VHS to sparsely watch the day after. As a young movie nerd blossoming that was surrounded with indifference and boredom, the iudea of a whole ceremony about cinema, was amazing to me. Then i grew up, and got cynical. I stopped watching.
Still in the latest years, the Academy has rewarded strong and unvonvential moives, peaking on the year "There Will Be Blood" and "No country for old men" were rewarded. Two actors playing villains with no heart were awarded. Pessimism won. How cool was that.
That didnt happen again. The awards were again about bloated, pleasant, turgid movies with an (thunderclap) UPLIFTING MESSAGE). And this year seems to have gone the same way. But not really.
The Social Network fandom seems to be promoting the movie like its the symbol of modern society and the future. Everything abouyt The King's Speech smells of "the usual biopic about disabilities". It is about royalties, it has beloved british actors, it has the uplifting message. Still, ill say: between the two, while still being the LEAST ENJOYABLE, "King's Speech" is the most daring and difficult. Why? Here's why.
King's Speech is a movie that has its driving force in main actor Colin Firth's Performance. Geoffrey Rush is incredibly mediocre in it. The direction is tepid. Still it is different BECAUSE of the type of character Firth plays and how he plays it. His King is a douche, an unlikeable weak man, with a bad temper and no charisma. His stuttering is the least of his problems. His need for therapy is nt to overcome his problem forever in an ispiring manner. He needs to talk decently enough to deliver some speeches. And when he does, he does it barely (as noted on the great movie podcast Battleship Pretension), being guided through every single word. And hes announcing a war. Yes, he pulls it off and has a friendship, still he remains a mediocre man who will die young and miserable after spending years fighting a painful war. The whole movie is about a sad broken man wioth a crown and Firth plays that perfectly.
The Social Network on the other hand is a quite engaging legal thriller that happens to talk about the most useless invention of the century. Fincher direction is barely noticeable, probably on purpose and the actors are mostly there to say Sorkin's lines. And as much as Sorkin is a great writer, he is also turned into one of the most standardized and clichéd authors in hollywood. Watch "A Few Good Men" or any "West Wing" episode and youll notice the similarities between them and "Social Network".
Sorkin doesnt care about modern society or Facebook or the complexities of Zuckerberg's character. He has no sympathy or interest in those things. He is a lefty ìntellectual who is in love with his own words. So you have (again) a bunch of people who sermonize to each others at tables or in rooms. Its engaging but identical to anything he wrote in the past.
So while Fincher's movie is the most interesting to watch, it did NOT deserve an award. And King's Speech while looking on surface as the easier choice and while still being a monumental bore, was the most uncomfortable between the nominees.
As for the rest of the awards..... meh.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento