Oscar nominations; Yay or Nay?

If I were to put together my ideal list of Oscar nominations it would without doubt bear very little resemblance to the actual list. It would feature multiple nominations for the likes of Martha, Marcy, May, Marlene, Drive, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, We Need To Talk About Kevin, Shame and Take Shelter. As it is Madonna’s diabolical W.E has more nominations than each one of those films with the exception of Drive with which it is drawing. I was aware that very few of what are in my opinion the best pieces of cinema from the 2011 season were in the running for the Oscars, and I had already consoled myself in this. As a result I was really rather pleasantly surprised when the nominations were released earlier this afternoon.

We'll begin with the acting nominations. The supporting actor nods went to who many expected, with Christopher Plummer the clear frontrunner in the male category, with Octavia Spencer representing the women. Many pundits worries that Jessica Chastain would suffer a split vote after a bumper year with at least five potentially worthy performances proved unfounded, although I would rather she be nominated for The Tree Of Life or Take Shelter than The Help, but we must take what we are given. There were other bonuses about the category with Melissa McCarthy gaining a nomination for Bridesmaids and Jonah Hill for Moneyball. However, a major snub beginning a running theme through out the nominations this year was that of Albert Brookes, who had seemed to be Christopher Plummer's biggest competition in the category. It would seem the Academy were just not feeling any love for Drive.

This was carried through to the lead acting nominations, which saw Ryan Gosling snubbed for both Drive and Ides Of March, as well as a snub for Michael Fassbender, who was essentially the male equivalent of Chastain this year. With accomplished performances in four films, including a stand out performance in Shame, many were predicting him a wild card slot in the race. That is not to say there were not some pleasant surprises to be found within the nominations. Gary Oldman, whose Oscar campaign seemed to be losing steam, but was aided by the BAFTA nominations last week, secured his first ever nomination. Incredible to realise for an actor with such an illustrious career. Demian Bechir also secured a surprise nomination for phenomenally understated performance in A Better Life, and a welcome one for an actor who had been widely ignored by the guild and critic voters. Clooney remains odds-on favourite to triumph in this category, but the nominations are considerably more lively than that of the Golden Globes.

There was only one nomination in the Best Actress category that could be considered a surprise. Rooney Mara was deservedly nominated for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, however, the rest of the category strikes me as rather stale. In securing her place Mara has unfortunately pushed out Tilda Swinton for We Need To Talk About Kevin. If it were up to me this category would be transformed, with Williams, Streep and Close out, replaced by Swinton, Elizabeth Olsen for MMMM and Carey Mulligan for her career best performance in Shame. One can't help but feel that these nominations were arbitrary, with interest lost in this specific area of the race thanks to the steam engine that is Meryl Steep. I'm still holding out hope for a Viola Davis victory, but I am not holding my breath.

Conversely, the screenplay categories provided some pleasant surprises. With J.C Chandor being recognised for his work on Margin Call and Asghr Farhadi for A Separation. The adapted screenplays were somewhat more predictable, but a close run race, with good work found in each of the screenplays. I cannot help but feel that the nod to Bridesmaids, again not undeserved, but was a form of consolation for the Academy, frankly not having the balls to nominate the acting of Kristen Wiig for providing the steady, emotional heart vital to sustaining interest throughout the film.

Direction, again, was a fairly predictable category, although a pleasant surprise came in the form of Terrance Malick for The Tree Of Life. Ignored by the guilds many believed that the Palme D'ior winner had run out of momentum. There were deserved and expected nominations for Payne, Hazanavicius, Allen and Scorsese. However the Academy chose to acknowledge his work over some surprising omissions. Spielberg was left out for War Horse, which suffered from a clunky screenplay, but was directed beautifully. Stephen Daldry was also left out for Extremely Loud And Incredibly close; not surprising given the films reviews, but this is the first time Daldry has directed a film and not been nominated.

This brings us nicely to the Best Picture category. The Academy changed the rules this year, leaving a flexible number of nominations (between five and ten), each film requiring at least 5% of the first vote. Surprisingly there were nine nominations, with Daldry's Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close gaining one of them, making the film one of the worst reviewed best picture nominees in history. We need to bow down to the power of Scott Rudin. The other nominations, again, were predictable featuring Hugo, The Artist, The Descendants, War Horse, The Help, Midnight in Paris and Moneyball. The other somewhat surprising nomination went to The Tree Of Life, hardly a mainstream picture and notably not Malick's best work (but still a worthy nominee) help contribute to this surprise.

All in all, a mixed bag with a few pleasant surprises. Going into the nominations I was aware that there would be many great performances overlooked and great (repetition) small films left high and dry, although I would have liked to have seen both Tinker Tailor and Drive make a bit more of an impact. Smart money is on The Artist to win big, but I think mine's on Hugo. If Hugo were to win it would be the first 3D film to win Best Picture and in my opinion, the first worthy 3D film to do so. Still, only time will tell the ultimate result on February 26^th

Side note: WTF is up with the original song category this year?

or

hmmmmm....

Should British Filmmakers be more independent?

This was my entry for the Sight & Sound Ken Loach Essay Writing Competition. I did not win but I decided to publish it here to mark my renewed commitment to film blogging. Enjoy!

“We have to make films that people want to watch and films which will benefit beyond themselves as they will also encourage people to come and visit our country.” David Cameron made these remarks in November last year to indicate where he thinks the National Lottery funding previously under the control of the UK Film Council should be invested. Who can blame him? After all, over the past decade the face of the British film industry has changed dramatically thanks mainly to JK Rowling's insistence that the Harry Potter franchise was made entirely in Britain. As a result Britain suddenly has the infrastructure in place to be able to produce blockbuster level films like she has never done before and is becoming a more and more desirable location for filming. This ideological view may have the best of intentions behind it, but if British funding bodies take Mr Cameron's advice, filmmakers face losing the independence that has been distinguishing cinema in this country for decades.

The trouble with Mr Cameron's suggestion is that British films tend to have a low-to-mid range budget with filmmakers forced to campaign for funds from relatively few bodies here in the UK, with some talent taken under the wing of Film4 or the BBC, others look to distributers for money like Working Title or Studio Canal. These filmmakers are independent in the traditional sense, gaining funding from companies outside the major studios. As a result they often gain more freedom when creating their films. This encourages independent film making in the sense that they are creating independent pieces of art, regardless of the reception.

It is undeniable that the likes of Film4 have harnessed talent that has allowed films to stand out from other films with truly independent ideas or truly original ways of expressing these ideas. Danny Boyle is arguably the most successful filmmaker in this respect to come out of Film4, with his diverse and extreme offerings from Trainspotting to Sunshine and his recent awards success with Slumdog Millionaire. Even beyond that Film4 do seem to be nurturing new British talent and encouraging independent thought. Last year saw them fund Chris Morris' debut feature film offering Four Lions, every bit as controversial as you would expect from Morris, hard hitting and unafraid to ask uncomfortable questions. This year saw the release of Richard Ayoade's debut feature Submarine a charming and nostalgic look at a young man coming of age in the 1970s and just a few weeks ago Ben Wheatley's unsettling Kill List, whose genre is unfair to define, is certainly a cult classic in the making. Not to mention Considine's Sundance sensation Tyrannosaur, the harrowing look at one man's submission to rage and violence. These five filmmakers could not be more different from each other in style and approach but they each have two things in common; they are all fiercely independent and fundamentally British.

Mr Cameron needs to understand the benefit that the UK Film Council provided British Filmmakers; set up by the Labour government with National Lottery funding to encourage one of the fastest growing industries in Britain. This enabled a vast range of talent to explore the art form of filmmaking in as independent way as possible, rewarding innovative ideas and encouraging originality. In its time the council distributed £160 million to over nine hundred films including many of the most critical acclaimed British films of recent years, including Petit's Man On Wire, Meadow's This Is England and, of course, Cooper's The Kings Speech who this year went on to Oscar glory. Although the latter is by no means an independently minded film with the classic tale of the underdog made about Britain primarily for the American market, with some glaring historical inaccuracies.

The King's Speech is the perfect example of where British filmmakers are beginning to become reliant on American influences. The prognosis is not set to improve either, with the UK Film Council disbanded thanks to the coalition's austerity kick, with the funding arm reassigned to the British Film Institute. It is not clear, however, whether the BFI are going to continue with the approach of funding more lower budget films or if they are going to follow Mr Cameron's advice, trying to fund blockbusters that rival Potter's success. This could be a risky strategy given the fates of other franchises that have attempted to cash in on Potter's market; The Golden Compass failed to ignite the box office with it's watered down themes that are so predominant in Phillip Pullman's book. There is also Narnia, the franchise that has been moved from studio to studio, hardly creating the enviable sure fire box office success that Potter has held for so many years.

There are further dangers with the government's desire for quantity rather than quality. Over the decades British films have become synonymous with being quirky, eccentric and unique, the visions of independently minded individuals seeking to bring something new to the art form. Britain has proved herself to be more than capable of holding her own in an industry dominated by America right the way back to the Ealing comedies of the 1940s to the New wave of the 1960s and 1970s to Mike Leigh in the 1990s. The evidence is there to prove that British filmmakers have always been independently creative and audiences all around the world have come to associate this with British films. That is not to say that all British films are good, it would simply be impossible, but there are filmmakers out there who champion original ideas, baulking at the prospect of formulas so often found in the major studio releases. If British film is to become dominated by blockbusters, homegrown talent is likely to become disillusioned and seek to express their creativity elsewhere.

However, in recent years renewed hope has been found in the shape of Christopher Nolan who successfully managed to combine independent ideas with a big studio to create three successful blockbusters which are just as much for the mind as they are for the eye. Nolan's reinvention of the Batman franchise was nothing short of phenomenal, followed by last year's Inception which confused as much as it wowed leading the way to massive box office returns. Are these the kind of films that Mr Cameron wants British filmmakers to create? It is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility. Nolan does make all of his films in the UK and Warner Brothers have proven to support such ventures. There is one major failing in this thinking; everyone else is not Christopher Nolan. His name brings in audiences just as much as star power. Would Warner Brothers have funded a film with a concept such as the one in Inception in the hands of a complete unknown? I'm not so sure.

In isolated cases the blockbuster template does work, but these films are more often made by American companies with American filmmakers. The UK is becoming an increasingly popular location for films of all nationalities, allowing growth in the industry without necessarily forcing British filmmakers to walk the often well trodden path of blockbuster plots. British filmmakers are currently still able to make unique films independently of the big studios. If Mr Cameron wants to see the evidence he need only look at this years Venice Film Festival where three British films have been screened, each of them radically different; Steve McQueen's Shame, Alfredson's adaptation of Tinker Tailor Solider Spy and Arnold's groundbreaking adaptation of Wuthering Heights. Each have shocked and each have gained recognition. They may well have single handedly established Britain on the awards circuit this year.

What Mr Cameron fails to understand is that the British film Industry is well regarded, generally speaking, and removing funding opportunities in an already limited market will further limit the already stilted impact of the more radical filmmakers in Britain. Should British filmmakers be more independent? I would say, at the moment we do quite well really, in creating interesting, innovative and unique cinema. It is the future where the concern lies, in the short sighted bureaucracy who do not understand the importance of the independent mind that British cinema has had for years. Mr Cameron needs to understand the importance of supporting the individual talent of British filmmakers with independent funds, or surely it will not be long until independence in British cinema is lost.