Just as I was struggling to make sense of the five Oscar best-picture nominees, along comes Justin Chang's terrific analysis in the industry trade, Variety. (The graphic accompanied his essay.)
Of best-picture nominees Atonement, Juno, Michael Clayton, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, Chang discerns a split between "the booze, oil, blood and testosterone" of Clayton, No Country and Blood, movies about men doing wrong, and the daughter themes of Atonement and Juno, which center on the actions of young women trying to put things right.
Help me tease out the subtexts here. We have male-centered movies that are death-focused and female ones that are life-affirming (this, despite Atonement's prolonged battle scene at Dunkirk)? We have the masculine movies with mature males and the feminine ones with underage girls, an asymmetry seen in so many Hollywood movies. (Are teenage girls less threatening than mature woman? Michael Clayton, with Tilda Swinton as the corporate lackey who hires a hitman, would bear this out.)
What other themes do you see in the films of 2007? Among the Oscar nominees? And in this closely-contested Oscar season, what are you betting will take the gold?
Comments (16)
Looked at from the right angle, the three male-centered films could be seen as different views of who George Bush is: the old-fashioned, decent lawman who can't cope with what seems like a new kind of evil in the world ("No Country For Old Men"); the simple, bloody, take-no-prisoners oilman who destroys everything in his path, including - especially? - that most dear to him ("There Will Be Blood"); and the unseen, undefeatable puppetmaster pulling the strings in all our worst paranoid visions of corporate America ("Michael Clayton").
Posted by wwolfe | February 14, 2008 4:44 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 16:44
Whoa. Food for thought.
Posted by Carrie | February 14, 2008 9:38 PM
Posted on February 14, 2008 21:38
The left hates George Bush so much I wouldn't put it past them to create a triple headed affront to his presidency. At this point he is impossible to defend, but since I didn't see any of these movies it's impossible for me to determine whether they are right or wrong.
If Hollywood would come up with a better product maybe I would go see one of their productions.
Posted by Anonymous | February 15, 2008 6:07 PM
Posted on February 15, 2008 18:07
To wwolfe: Bravo! Great analyses!
To anonymous: Only the left hates George Bush? You really ought to get out more.
To anonymous: Why "anonymous"?
Posted by Jan | February 15, 2008 6:18 PM
Posted on February 15, 2008 18:18
greed. michael clayton's evil lawyers and coporations; daniel plainview's consumptive, rapacious appetite for land--"Why don't I own this? Why don't I own this?"--; in no country for old men, llewelyn moss takes the money and tries to keep it for himself, destroying himself and his family in the process, anton chigurh's cool, malevolent force represents a force that can wipe out the greed of others, and tommy lee jones' impotent, resigned sheriff is without answer for the rampant greed and destruction he sees. justin bateman's character in juno is greedy for his former life as a musician; he hates his life. and atonement....isn't it really about briony's greed for the truth as she sees it, a lie that destroys lives and loves.
what do people think?
Drainage!
Posted by jamesinphilly | February 16, 2008 9:02 PM
Posted on February 16, 2008 21:02
James,
Wow. Although Atonement doesn't quite fit under the greed umbrella, you nailed it.
Posted by Carrie | February 17, 2008 7:40 AM
Posted on February 17, 2008 07:40
I can't get past wwolfe's suggestion that George W. Bush is "a decent lawman."
Posted by abramorama | February 17, 2008 9:29 AM
Posted on February 17, 2008 09:29
Abramorama: I think what wwolfe is saying is that it's Bush who sees himself "a decent lawman." I don't think wwolfe is saying that. Maybe I'm wrong.
Posted by Jan | February 17, 2008 10:57 AM
Posted on February 17, 2008 10:57
I think wwolfe is on to something and I buy into his theory on the recurring theme connecting this year’s nominated films just about completely. And I don’t think it’s accidental. A few years ago, I read a film essay (forgetting where and who wrote it) in which the author opined that, historically, the current administration has a direct, almost inadvertent affect on the socio-political ambience of the country, including the themes that run through our culture, films and pop entertainment included. The author offered examples of the Presidents in office and the most popular films during his administration. Absolutely fascinating. No, it’s no coincidence that unquenchable greed runs through not only this year’s best film nominees, but also throwaway films (“Mad Money,” for example) and disposable TV shows (“Cashmere Mafia” and “Lipstick Jungle” and just about all of the reality shows). We’ve been conditioned to believe that more is better, particularly more money and that any way we accumulate that money is somehow justified, usually through corrupt logic. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe all of this has reached a fevered pitch within the past eight years.
Posted by Joe | February 18, 2008 7:37 AM
Posted on February 18, 2008 07:37
Rambo - No Stars
$40 million box office and 34% at rottentomatoes.com
The Hottie and the Nottie - One Star
$27,696 box office, 7% at rottentomatoes.com and voted as the Worst Movie of All-Time by users of IMDB.com
I think a fair re-review (without the obvious axe to grind) of Rambo is necessary.
Posted by Thailand Monk | February 18, 2008 11:36 AM
Posted on February 18, 2008 11:36
Maybe it's just the old adage that girls mature faster than boys. The most acclaimed film about boys didn't get much Oscar consideration, probably because of their perceived immaturity: "Superbad"
Posted by David | February 18, 2008 3:11 PM
Posted on February 18, 2008 15:11
2007 themes? A couple:
1) Westerns, with a twist. Some films are obviously Westerns (3:10 to Yuma, Assassination of Jesse James), others less so (There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men).
2) The Arrival of three actors-turned-directors: Sean Penn, Ben Affleck and Denzel Washington all did impressive jobs, two of them in their debuts. I think all three have Clint Eastwood-type futures, if they choose to go that route (and they should).
Posted by EricW | February 20, 2008 3:08 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 15:08
Oh, another theme: The Iraq war film no one wants to see, including ones that came and went like Grace is Gone and Badland, that are all worth seeing. Filmmakers need to revisit 1970, when two war films about previous wars -- not the current -- commented on the current one using humor/farce extremely effectively: MASH and Catch-22.
That's the best way to make social commentary anyway -- make something entertaining on the surface, get people into their seats, make them laugh and become engaged, and then hit them with the truth.
Posted by EricW | February 20, 2008 3:18 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 15:18
Excellent points, thanks Eric.
Posted by Carrie | February 20, 2008 3:20 PM
Posted on February 20, 2008 15:20
Eric:
I think you are wrong about two of the directors making debuts. Afleck yes; Penn and Washington have directed before.
Posted by movieirv | February 22, 2008 9:41 PM
Posted on February 22, 2008 21:41
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Anonymous | May 5, 2008 7:47 AM
Posted on May 5, 2008 07:47