The complaints about the film always seem petty and not entirely relevant, and the tone is reminiscent of those public opinion polls where white people insist they're not racist but "people they know" are.
Gawker recently published an interview with an unknown Academy Award voter, who odds are is old, white and male. I appreciate his candor but his logic and opinions are just wrong about practically every major category.
When it comes to best picture, he voted for American Hustle (admittedly a terrific film) because, among other things, he doesn't think it takes "courage" to make 12 Years.
He says and I quote,"With 12 Years a Slave, you don't even crack a smile, but it was interesting, admirable and well done; I must say, though, that contrary to what some have asserted, it's not as if it required great courage to make this movie -- maybe if you made it in Mississippi in 1930."
Wow. So much condescension in so little time. First off, I am pretty confident that you should not expect to or want to "crack a smile" when watching a true story about a man kidnapped into slavery. I won't bother parsing dismissive compliments like "interesting" and "admirable" because I am much more infuriated by the argument that the movie lacks "courage."
Apparently this academy voter is unaware of the fact that it is incredibly hard to get a historical epic, with a predominately black, unknown cast financed, let alone pitched as an Oscar contender. Even though the story of Solomon Northup has been around for centuries it took one of the biggest movie stars in the world, Brad Pitt, to get Hollywood to take notice and even then it could only be as a modestly budgeted prestige picture.
Lupita Nyong'o in 12 Years a Slave |
I've heard people balk at 12 Years a Slave or avoid it because they are afraid the subject matter will be too unpleasant for them -- which I think is cowardly and short-sighted. But I've never heard someone having the audacity to suggest that it didn't take guts to get the movie made.
And no, it could not have been made in 1930, in Mississippi, or Delaware, or anywhere else. I don't even know where to start with that one.
Clearly there is a brewing backlash in the Hollywood establishment against the film because it was lauded so early and it was declared the presumptive frontrunner before most audiences got a chance to even see it. Oscar voters understandably don't want to feel obligated to pick a certain best picture. They want to ostensibly make their choices based on merit.
But this is what really gets my goat when it comes to 12 Years a Slave, because it truly was an extraordinary film, regardless of its subject matter, and it actually deserves to win the best picture honor.
Why does it matter? A best picture award means a lot of free publicity -- and that means a lot more tickets sold and I think it's an important film that as many people should see as possible.
But Hollywood has a long history of snubbing greater films for merely good ones.
So if 12 Years a Slave joins the illustrious class of classics that were denied their rightful prize, including Citizen Kane, Goodfellas and Raging Bull, then in a way its fitting.
Those films continued to leave a legacy long after the dust cleared from the Academy Awards and I believe 12 Years a Slave will remain a rewarding and enriching experience for those who give it a chance for many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment