Carey Mulligan, she of the radiant face, would have been my pick for 2009's Best Actress, instead of Sandra Bullock. But thinking about it, Sandra's win was pretty unsurprising. It probably wasn't the most competitive year for the Best Actress category: you have heavyweight Meryl Streep doing great (and bio-picky) work but in a lightweight and so-so film; you have heavyweight Helen Mirren in a film that nobody has been really passionate about (and she also already won just a couple years back); you have bright young thing Gabourey Sidibe who is a little too new on the scene to win - it's not "her time"; you have bright young thing Carey Mulligan whom everyone expects will have many more chances in the next few decades - it's not "her time"; and lastly you have Sandra Bullock who fits pretty much into one of the Academy's beloved molds: she's charismatic, everyone loves her, a real veteran - been paying her dues for years; she's never been near enough to even get a whiff of an Oscar and although the thought might strike some as crazy, who's to say she doesn't deserve it this year... in other words it just might be her time. Like how it was Kate Winslet's time. And Martin Scorsese's. Neither won for their best work but everyone likes a happy ending.
And Sandra Bullock is a great campaigner. It's a real tricky art (this is such a good article on the whole crazy political process) - it’s never enough to just make the damn movie. You have to launch a full-scale political assault on Academy members, industry personnel, the media, the bloggers, and the general populace... but do it with style and subtlety. Draw the fine line between humility (“oh being nominated is honor enough”) and aggression (show that you really do want this more than anyone else), passion (attending every single special screening, every single luncheon) and desperation (it’s just an award, not life and death). Some people are good at this (Daniel Day-Lewis – effortless class, commands respect, but not too cool to let people know he's playing the game) and some are not (poor Carey. She'll get the hang of it eventually).
Oh shut up, me. Going to stop pretending to be an expert on Oscar watching now. It’s a fascinating social science and there are many dedicated people who study it year after year, documenting how the game evolves. I guess all I’m trying to say is that the mantle of an Oscar signifies a lot more things that just the pure quality of a film or a performance, as neat and satisfying as that would be. It’s not as straightforward as just being the best; it’s a long process that begins months and months before the actual night, with a multitude of factors (eg. the always questionable taste of a bunch of random old people known as the Academy) colliding to produce such an end.
No comments:
Post a Comment