Oscars 2007

Oscar prepares for the ceremony with a furtive wank.

Practically every year, I swear that I'll never watch the Oscars again. I'm pretty sure I washed my hands of them after the English Patient debacle. And again, and again, and again after the Beautiful Mind, Chicago, and Crash disasters. But despite multiple handwashings, I've always come back. Couldn't help myself. Well, this year I'm drawing a line in the sand, arseholes: if Babel wins, that's it -- the Oscars and I will go our separate ways. Forever.

Yeah, yeah, it's only an award, and the more-discerning-than-thou will crimp your lips in disapproval at the idea -- the very idea! -- that works of art can be pitted against each other in this fashion. Sure, I realise it's just one great advertisement for Hollywood and its product, and rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb-rhubarb. I understand all that. All the same, I can't help but be interested. I've usually seen most, if not all, of the nominated films, so I can't help but champion some and barrack against others. Perhaps I am just a consumerist dupe. Whatever.

Anyway, putting to one side the broader ramifications of the whole exercise, what's the field like this year? In a nutshell, not that good. Of the five nominated films, I can't wholeheartedly barrack for any of them. So this year I find myself in the not unfamiliar position of endorsing films only after a process of elimination and not out of great conviction.

In the great tradition of AFL discussion sites and interminable Voss-Buckey-Hird disputes, I offer my analysis thusly:

The Departed>Letters from Iwo Jima>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Little Miss Sunshine>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Queen>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Babel

I wouldn't mind if either The Departed or Letters from Iwo Jima won. To my mind, it's a difficult choice between the two -- and I say this as someone whose not a rabid proponent of either Scorsese or Eastwood. Scorsese is a director whose work I've often been impressed by but rarely in love with, and for years now I've thought that Eastwood was cosmically overrated. In short, I've got no dogs in this hunt.

Of the two, Scorsese has greater verve, storytelling ability and directorial chops. On the other hand, in The Departed I felt that he was slumming it. It's basically a genre film -- a superlatively put together, but ultimately disposable, thriller. Letters from Iwo Jima seems more conventional Oscar fare. It's a consciously 'serious' film about a big topic, and a film whose object is to humanise America's enemies is obviously topical. That said, at various points watching Letters is closer to a dutiful slog than a joyous experience. In a close call, I'll plump for The Departed for three reasons. 1) After being overlooked so many times Scorsese is due. 2) None of the other films are clearly more deserving. 3) A couple of years ago, I thought Scorsese's The Aviator ought to have beaten Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby.

Of the other nominated films, Little Miss Sunshine is cute and quirky, but for my money too slight to be a serious contender. (Then again, last year I thought Brokeback Mountain was a certainty, so what do I know?) That leaves The Queen and Babel. The Queen, let's be blunt, is a glorified telemovie. The acclaim it's garnered is utterly inexplicable, so I won't attempt to explain it. As for Babel, it's a con-job, and Innaritu is one of the most egregiously overrated directors in recent memory. Unfortunately, there's a very good chance it'll win.

And if it does, Oscar can go fuck himself.

--HSF