Every year the Oscars never fails to open some sort of topic of discussion, whether it’s about inclusivity, hosts (or lack of), speeches, or nominees to list a few. This year however, it seems that Martin Scorsese’s New York Times article about Marvel films and their place in cinema was certainly one of those topics for the 92nd Academy Awards. In retrospect, it’s clear that this past year’s releases have been skewed, franchises have pretty much taken over, making us question Hollywood’s motives and fuel by profit over picture. Is cinema dead? Or has it just become the entertainment industry’s golden cash-cow?
These questions weigh heavy on my chest as I watched the nominees being announced. As an aspiring filmmaker, it’s disheartening seeing the clear and obvious signs of nepotism and favouritism that takes place within the Academy. Whether it’s a gender issue or a race thing (for the last time, Antonio Banderas is white! Stop trying to make that happen…it’s not going to happen!), the Oscars always seem to struggle with race and diversity in many different ways.
For starters, indie films don’t always garner up the attention they deserve and perhaps that’s because they don’t really contribute to the Hollywood persona. A club of elitists that are ran by securing profit for their productions rather than the message and quality of their art. Films are capitalised rather than artistically digested. The unfortunate neglect towards the wholesome indie makes space for the likes of smug-faced-Quentin Tarantino. A man who is undoubtedly a master in his craft when it comes to packed prosthetic goodness; however, should Tarantino’s contribution to film iconography excuse him from the criticism and continuity backlash “Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood truly deserves? And shouldn’t everyone be open to criticism regardless of their status amongst peers? Apparently not, at least with the Academy.
Why are we ignoring the obvious? Greta Gerwig has been snubbed a nominee for best director. A nomination which has instead been given to Tarantino’s disillusioning Hollywood love story “Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood.” The Oscars could’ve done themselves a favour with this nominee, had they have opted for Greta Gerwig who doesn’t only add diversity, but she also deserves the nomination because of her direction in “Little Women.” Instead, they choose to nominate a director that stomps all over the legacy of dead icons, like Bruce Lee, reducing them to uneducated and ignorant high-key racist stereotypes. Only Tarantino would disrespect the highly-regarded figure and defend his own bigotry in the face of Lee’s family.
When looking at independent productions from the past year, it’s undeniably obvious that A24 have brought us some incredibly wholesome independent films that don’t just play to one genre but also tell many different stories from a range of diverse artistic voices. When it comes to cinema, A24 have done more than just push the boundaries, in fact, it could be argued they are one of the few remaining companies that still take risks, dismissing any negative notions the risk factor usually entails. As they say, no risk, no reward, maybe Hollywood could learn a thing or two from this. Titles such as “The Lighthouse,” “The Last Black Man In San Francisco,” and “Waves” are just some of last year’s phenomenal releases from A24. Considering Jarin Blaschke’s cinematography in “The Lighthouse”is nominated for an Oscar, is this justifiably enough representation for indie cinema? How were Willem Dafoe and Pattinson’s performance so overlooked? Why is the film itself, not up for best picture?
It can’t be down to its graphic content, as on the contrary we have “Parasite” which is nominated not only for ‘Best Foreign Film’ but also ‘Best Picture.’ So where do the Academy draw the line? How do they make these decisions and on what criteria are these decisions based on?
Also Read: Oscars 2020: Predictions for all Categories (and Snubs)
Leonardo DiCaprio is an actor who never fails to deliver a great performance, that, we all know. However, is his performance in “Once Upon A Time… in Hollywood“ really that great that it deserved a nomination over Pattinson and Dafoe, who spoke in old-trawlerman dialectic throughout the film? To my mind, even the notion of having to memorise dialogue written in a different dialectic would obviously be more challenging and tasking than memorising dialogue in basic English. So, Academy, tell me, where is this justification in certain nominees and the snubbing? Surely it is more tasking and difficult for a small skeleton crew production to create a flawless piece of cinema in comparison to a big scale production where there are second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth unit departments. Yet it seems no one gives praise to these aspects of filmmaking. Are the Academy really there to represent cinema or has it now become a mainstream popularity contest?
In “The Lighthouse” we follow two phenomenal actors (Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson) who deliver an enchantingly haunting portrayal of two wickies who find themselves battling insanity whilst trying to find mutual agreeance in a cabin fever confided space. Robert Eggers is able to deliver an incredibly original piece of horror that stands out in its own right. Eggers creates a tense and atmospheric piece that has his own touch, but in the same vein is also able to pay homage to some of horrors greatest filmmakers such as Ingmar Bergman through its metaphorical use of imagery and stripped-down cinematography. All of these individual components come together to create a gripping experience that transcends into something more than just a film. It’s a film that’ll make even an avid horror fan paranoid of the dark. Eggers is able to create characters that not only feel authentic but also compel the viewer into watching more. It’s very difficult to make the uninteresting interesting; and Eggers is a man, who once again, is able to bring life out of minimalism and create an iconographic piece of film. First with “The Witch”(2015) and secondly, with “The Lighthouse.” Directors such as Eggers help push the boundaries of the horror genre and its perception today.
Horror has long been a dirty word with production companies, many horrors relying on jump scares and franchises to fuel profit. We’ve had our fair share of “Saw’s,” “Insidious’” and “Paranormal Activities.” Eggers—whether it’s due to those he looks up to or his own style—is able to create narrative-driven horror that relies on his characters and their sanity rather than the simplicity of jump scares or slasher gimmicks. Adding more depth and meaning to horror.
Willem Dafoe’s interpretation of Thomas Wake is tremendously meritable—he truly becomes Wake. Not to mention Robert Pattinson’s interpretation of Ephraim Winslow (an unfortunate wickie) is a step up from his performances in both “Good Time” (2017) and “High Life” (2018). Unlike the much praised and highly nominated “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood,” Pattinson and Dafoe’s performances drive the film, rather than the film driving the characters, unlike the story in “Once Upon a Time,” which instead has the narrative driving the characters, making the film a little less engaging and more voyeuristic chewing-gum for the brain piece of cinema. Pretty lights and flashy set pieces are great, but can you do that on a shoe-string budget? Eggers on the other hand, created a piece of art with two theatre-esque performances that would exist big-budget or not. Something that the Academy never consider. Shouldn’t film and awards not only be about the content provided but also how content can be made to such a standard without the reliance on excessive Hollywood bells and whistles? If Eggers had been given a couple of thousand dollars to make “The Lighthouse,” the dialogue would still exist and so would the narrative, could the same be said for “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood?” Doubtful.
…indie films don’t always garner up the attention they deserve and perhaps that’s because they don’t really contribute to the Hollywood persona.”
Another A24 production that was snubbed by the Academy was Trey Edward Shults’ “Waves,” receiving not even one nomination. Every detail from the freewheeling camera movement, to the innovative cinematic sequences, and all the bold performances are components worthy of appreciation in their own individual domain. Each moment in the film, no matter how big or small, weighs its own weight in your heart and soul; watching “Waves” can only be compared to a psychedelic trip that throws you into waves of heavy emotion and thought that makes the viewer question themselves, and if those who fault us are truly our saboteurs or if we ourselves are the ones self-sabotaging.
Shults shows this through every decision the protagonists make and how every little detail from their personal life, relationships and peers, to the struggles of high school and how all these factors can truly be too heavy a weight to carry for some. With life experiences, adults often overlook teenagers. Teenagers become stereotyped and categorised as ‘angsty’ or ‘melodramatic.’ Parents usually tell you heartbreak is silly and you’ll get over it; but what we don’t think or talk about is that when you’re a teenager, love is pure. In youth, love prospers, like a beautiful flower, through age all beauty withers away—and this is something Shults masterfully conveys in “Waves.”
Shults is able to show that love for the young is about escapism and finding where you belong. Whilst for parents, it’s about having that person to support you through hard times. Without going into spoilers, Shults beautifully follows an everyday middle-class family who find their own individual relationships and existence under attack after a tragic incident. It’s yet another film that has a transcending aura that makes it more than just a film. When the final credits roll, you’re left feeling raw. Now that’s a beautiful film. Its beauty is found in that rawness you feel as the end credits roll. For me, that’s Oscar material.
Nonetheless, 2019 has been a strange year for film. Martin Scorsese struggled to find anyone that would to pick up “The Irishman,” except Netflix. Martin Scorsese. Think about that! In his New York Times article he recalls, ‘Netflix allowed us to make “The Irishman” the way we needed to, and for that I’ll always be thankful.’ In this he dives into his justified despair for the future of cinema in the face of constant change, ‘the most ominous change has happened stealthily and under cover of night: the gradual but steady elimination of risk.’ This has pretty much killed off the classic and remarkable cinema that we have all grown fond of. Films have downgraded themselves to smaller screens and tamer audiences. It has stopped provoking, instead focused on entertaining (questionably). It has become an escapism that is no longer, only a plateau of our bleak algorithms and the capitalisation of money. Just money.
Now that “The Irishman”is taking the Oscars by storm, Scorsese’s words sink deeper. We look to Hollywood and the Box Office for answers, but who’s at fault?
Over time, we have lost certain actors and directors to franchises, which are in popular demand. What’s clear is that these franchises are worth a fortune, so a guarantee is certain. It is a guarantee to lean on, but also one that may cause an overall plateau in a career. Actors may fall into these holes, in essence making themselves vulnerable to typecasting, constantly being casted for specific roles that don’t challenge nor enhance an actor’s career. They are in a state of plateau, sameness. This damages their value and potential in starring in potential Oscar-worthy films, showcasing their talent. Franchises tie actors down, and this is bad. Successful actors downsize from making two films a year to only one film a year, or one every two years.
Chris Evans has been starring in the “Captain America” franchise for a few years now, since then he has not been doing as many films as before. His recent work in Rian Johnson’s “Knives Out” (nominated for ‘Best Original Screenplay’), has garnered up some attention, putting him on the spotlight for a bit, making us wonder what his next move will be. Will he now go down a more serious route? Or continue working with Marvel? Similarly, Robert Downy Jr’s “Iron Man” and “Avengers” films have left a mark on his career. An extensive career that goes way back before franchises were all the rage. Now he is set to star in “Dolittle.” How does an actor of this calibre end up in a film like this? You would expect something different. Perhaps something better. Scarlett Johanson has been nominated for ‘Best Actress in a Leading Role’ with “Marriage Story,” but franchises have also left a big imprint on her career; although she’s on the better end of it, as she’s been in and out of franchises. Franchises can be a positive to an actor’s career, but it’s all about the timing. Franchises aren’t that bad, they can be good, really good. It’s all about timing, to know when to jump in and jump out.
Depending on where you are in your career, a franchise may even save your career. A franchise amounts to money, but it also amounts to exposure. “
Depending on where you are in your career, a franchise may even save your career. A franchise amounts to money, but it also amounts to exposure. As a new face in the industry, a franchise would gain you more notoriety. Potentially amounting to more work.
This goes further than actors. It applies to directors too. Franchises may help you gain notoriety as an up and coming director and writer. Taika Waititi’s “JoJo Rabbit”is doing its Oscars rounds, with a nomination in ‘Best Adapted Screenplay,’ ‘Best Picture,’ ‘Best Achievement in Costume Design,’Best Achievement in Film Editing,’ ‘Best Achievement in Production Design,’ and ‘Best Actress in a Supporting Role.’ You may know Waititi from his “What We Do in The Shadows”(2014) series; others know him from his directorial work on the “Thor” franchise, or both. His involvement with the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been arguably positive and has gained him more notoriety. This leading to his latest film, “JoJo Rabbit,” he’s pretty much made it. Now, it may not be literally because of a franchise, but you can’t say the franchise didn’t help. It got people talking.
Whilst franchises can help strengthen a director’s career in terms of popularising their work, they also run the risk of sabotaging that director’s status and identity. This boils down to many different contributing factors, the main one being that usually when directing a franchised piece, the director is in fact delivering something that will look completely different to the finished product once the studio executive has had it rendered down. The best example being Zack Snyder and the ‘Snyder cut’ phenomenon. When Snyder signed on to produce the “Justice League” films, he had a different narrative in mind; however due to contractual agreements, Snyder was never able to release the version HE wanted to make. Instead the Studio executives butchered the film and released their final version that went on to be a flop amongst critics, fans of DC comic, and not exactly a Box Office bonanza.
The bad press following the release of “Justice League” lead to Snyder defending his association to the project by telling his fans the truth about how the production went down. Snyder explained to his fans the version of the film he had pitched and the version he had filmed; however this version was never fully backed by the studio nor has it ever seen the light of day. The ‘Snyder cut’ instead sits on Snyder’s hard-drive living in limbo, probably never to be seen, leaving fans of Snyder and DC with a bitter taste in their mouths. This is one of the many negative factors directors must consider when signing on to franchises.
Another example, is Sam Mendes. Mendes recently directed the two most recent James Bond films “Skyfall“ (2012) and “Spectre“(2015). “Skyfall” was a sensation amongst Bond fans and critics alike, whilst the follow up “Spectre” was an absolute shamble. “Spectre” took everything that worked well in “Skyfall” and instead of playing it safe, decided to throw its arms in the air and approach the story differently. This led to “Spectre” becoming a disjointed mess that jumps from location to location, trying to compress as much backstory and narrative in as little run-time as possible, whilst still fitting in car chases and unnecessary fight sequences. “Spectre” did feel more like a Bond movie than “Skyfall,” with the henchmen, the huge set pieces, and the incredible layer of Blofeld. Watching it felt like being in a James Bond video game, the train fight scene felt like a level out of “GoldenEye” for the Nintendo 64 (1997).
The cinematography and direction were immaculate; however the disjointed editing and constant jumping from location to location didn’t give enough room for the characters and story to develop. Instead, Mendes’ sophomore Bond film was merely just a film filled with iconography and no substance. Mendes knew, after the critical reception of “Spectre”—and the way in which the filmed turned out—that he needed to take a step away, find his feet again. This led Mendes to go back to basics, leading him to write and direct his next feature, “1917.”
“1917,” is a riveting piece of film with strength and power (which is also doing its Oscar rounds). However, this wasn’t the first time Mendes had flirted with the notion of making a war movie. In 2005 Mendes directed “Jarhead”—which was not only his first war movie, but was also the first film in which he collaborated with the phenomenal cinematographer Roger Deakins (Mendes would go on to hire Deakins as the cinematographer for “1917,” leading to an Oscar nomination). When looking at Mendes’ body of work, “1917″is arguably in the top tier—it is a true return to form. A true example of how sometimes, stepping away from franchises and doing your own thing, is always the best way to run any ship. If Mendes was to stay on the Bond franchise, he’d never know what could’ve been with the Oscar nominee and potential best picture win.
…[1917] is a true example of how sometimes, stepping away from franchises and doing your own thing, is always the best way to run any ship.”
Franchises are a safe haven, repackaging and remaking established ideas. This is why risks need to be taken for the sake of keeping film and cinema alive. Mendes took a chance on himself and now look at where he is. Franchises monopolise everything and always base their productions off of profit margins before the story is told. Studios try to milk franchises for as many sequels as possible when usually the story could’ve been wrapped up in a couple of movies. Franchises are gimmicks, just like iPhone. There’s a new one every year, but is an extra camera lens really enough to warrant spending $1000? NO. But unfortunately, in today’s day and age, people have more money than wits and they fund these franchises endlessly, because with social media and technology, if you aren’t in the loop or on the next trend, you’re an outsider, a nobody.
Aside from Mendes, Martin Scorsese was another director who also took a risk, keeping true to his words and most of all, his vision. When no one would see his “The Irishman’s” potential, he went and fought for it by trying something new, Netflix. The result is his Oscars triumph. It’s still there, this passion for cinema, however it’s now becoming an endangered species.
Ask yourself, when was the last time YOU really sat down and watched a proper piece of film. Something that was challenging and demanded your attention. I’m not talking about “Parasite,” “The Irishman,” or even “Little Women.” When was the last time you genuinely went out of your way to find a film that wasn’t advertised or sponsored for you? A film that wasn’t recommended or highly praised by critics. Nobody is funding up and coming ideas or originality, whether that be the fans or production studios, mainly because people today prefer to be told what to watch rather than make that decision themselves. There’s still time to change that. We can’t let the franchises and big production moguls and bullies take control of film, an art form that has now become a gimmick. That’s why we have to keep it going, inspiring, aspiring and taking risks.
The vision of the auteur is starting to no longer apply, and this is unfortunate. This is what the Oscars have become, praising directors who direct screenplays that aren’t originally theirs and labelling it as original. The Oscars has become a popularity contest, focusing more on persona, political statements, and activism in speeches rather than the celebration of art. Most of the films nominatined are pseudo art, pseudo entertainment, and not enough people are questioning it. Instead we orbit in circles of Twitter rants and Facebook posts, constantly ruled by social media, but leading to no action, constantly screaming our frustration into an online echo chamber. The same echo chamber that uses our own personal data and internet cookies to promote and advertise these very same pseudo-art films.
Ask yourself: When was the last time you went and saw a movie, you truly wanted to see, based on your own discovery?
