This isn't exactly topical, but I was listening to the archives of Joe Rogan's podcast and they were talking about it. A film came out in November of 2009 called "Precious." In this movie, a morbidly obese illiterate 16-year old girl has two children that were the result of repeated rapes by her father. Later in the movie, she finds out he also gave her AIDS. Oh, and she was also sexually molested by her mother. And... it won tons of awards. WHAT. THE. FUCK. Who wants to watch this movie??
Now, apparently the real heart of the movie is about the girl meeting a support group, and trying to put her life back together. I'm sure it is very inspiring or some shit. But I reiterate: WHAT. THE. FUCK. Who wants to watch this movie??
On the aforementioned podcast, they were talking about this movie, and how it seems like really depressing movies are always the ones that win awards. Why is that? Why does society reward depressing movies, but not fun movies? Why is it that a comedy or action film will rarely if ever win "best picture," but the Incest Rape Spectacular is a shoe-in for every award under the sun?
(Please note that I don't actually care about what films, actors, etc. win awards. Doesn't interest me in the least. I am just questioning the process by which these awards are given out, and what criteria are being used. I also admit to not being a film buff, so I welcome any disagreements.)
Depressing movies
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
First of all, I will say that awards shows (especially Oscars) are very political. They don't just take all the movies released in a year and consider which is the best for that year. People are often nominated because they've been passed over in previous years, as if to say that their body of work means they deserve an Oscar for whatever they've done most recently. I know there are some actors that never won an Oscar (Cary Grant, Peter O'Toole) and people consider this a kind of travesty.
Also, sometimes people/movies are nominated as a kind of symbolic gesture, a way of The Academy saying "We think this is important and we want everyone to know how open-minded we are." Hence the nomination of Holocaust movies, movies about minority communities, sexually explicit films, etc.
While sometimes depressing movies get nominated for the above reasons, there's also different definitions of what makes a "great" (i.e., an award-winning) movie. I think people sometimes decide that "great art" and "entertainment" are mutually exclusive. Sure, a great movie can be entertaining, but entertainment is not the primary purpose of a great movie, and movies that are TOO entertaining are in danger of missing the mark.
That said, I haven't seen Precious or read the book it's based on, so I'm not one to judge. People who've seen it say that there's a strange amount of humor and hope in it that you wouldn't get from reading a paragraph summary. Half the time Rich will try to get me to see a movie and I'll say, "A five-hour two-part movie about French gangsters? No thanks" And then I end up loving it. So who knows!
I think the issue is a little more simple than any of this. Depressing movies stick with you longer than happy-go-lucky films. It is just that simple. The movies that win these awards aren't just sad. You can watch puppies get run over by a lawn mower, but I wouldn't nominate it for an Oscar. The depressing movies that win awards pull you in and take advantage of these deeper emotions. Even if the film comes to a positive end, viewers feel they were somehow part of the character's journey and it will be the first thing they remember come voting time. Just given the nature of comedy, I think it is harder to leave viewers with the same visceral reaction. The comedies I have enjoyed over the years, Office Space, the Hangover for example have been funny but they have also had shock value. I don't think our society has a means to quantify the intangibles which should give non-dramas consideration for awards.
Post a Comment