by Rumaan Alam
I inevitably look forward to the yearly announcement of Academy Award nominees. I am intrigued by the machinery surrounding the film industry, and besides, I love knowing who's going to be at the Oscars so I can prepare myself to admire their clothes.
I was puzzled, as always, by this year's nominations. The distance between the Academy (that's the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, in case you were wondering) Awards, which everyone watches and then complains endlessly about, and independent films, highlighted at festivals like Sundance, which no one cares about but everyone pretends to, is substantial.
Supposedly, the Oscars are not necessarily simply for big mainstream films any longer. Recent winners have included the independent-minded Fargo (Best Actress - Frances McDormand) and Ed Wood (Best Supporting Actor - Martin Landau). But in general, the nomination of performers and films like Brenda Blethyn (for Secrets and Lies) or Pulp Fiction are merely the Academy's way of acknowledging that smaller, more innovative films even exist.
Why does the Academy (is there any more fitting name for them than this?) see it necessary to nominate the least deserving films in the name of artistic independence? Why do critics and the media constantly praise the Academy's open-mindedness for nominating insipid films like Four Weddings and a Funeral, The English Patient, Shadowlands or Sleepless in Seattle? In recent years, when these films were so honored by the Academy, they became that year's token "independent" or "art house" nominee.
Perhaps no one has a clear sense of what constitutes an independent film, or perhaps simply being nominated for such a mainstream award disqualifies a film from such a classification. Even so, much is made over nominations, such as this year's nominees Life is Beautiful (an interesting choice for both Best Foreign Film and Best Picture), or Hillary and Jackie or Affliction.
It's even worse when one of these token nominees actually takes home an award. In general, it seems harmless enough to nominate a film like Secrets and Lies since it's a foregone conclusion that a film like Titanic is going to clean up regardless. But when silly films like The Piano, Shine or The English Patient win, it's sad to see the Academy carry this affirmative-action mindset a bit too far.
This year, I was most thankful that Jim Carrey, despite many predictions, was not nominated for his wretched film, The Truman Show. Just because a comic goes serious does not mean he or she deserves a major award. Awarding Carrey for his transition from genuinely well-made bad films to a horrible attempt at a good film is exactly the kind of thing the Academy does so well. And of course, Peter Weir was nominated for the direction of the film. Thankfully, Spielberg will probably win once again.
The nominations for this and the past few years demonstrate certain truths about the Academy awards which are constantly being lamented in essays just like this one. Here we go, just for the record.
1. The Academy loves period films. But the well-done films in this genre - A Room with a View, The Last Emperor - never compare to trash like Titanic and Shakespeare in Love.
2. The Academy loves World War II. This year alone, three of the five nominees for Best Picture deal with this period in history: The Thin Red Line, Saving Private Ryan and the ubiquitous Life is Beautiful. Remember Schindler's List? Forget about films that beautifully, subtly deal with the Holocaust experience, such as Sophie's Choice.
3. The Academy is a sucker for sob stories. Why else honor Geoffrey Rush in Shine, Holly Hunter in The Piano?
4. Nominees are often being honored for something other than the film at hand. Was Gloria Stuart seriously being honored for Titanic or was she simply being lauded for being old? What about Lauren Bacall in The Mirror Has Two Faces? I honestly think she was nominated because she's still so damn beautiful.
I could go on and on, railing against the Academy Awards, but it's honestly nothing new or interesting. I just want to know, what is the logic in trying to widen the scope of the awards to nominate "art films?" I would prefer to have Helen Hunt win every single damn award than watch Gwyneth Paltrow accept her award for Shakespeare in Love, as I'm sure she will. Well, complain as I might, I have less an idea what makes independent film than most people. And what's more, I will still be watching a few weeks from now. Not that I care to watch Roberto Benigni move the audience to tears - I'm just hoping to get a glimpse of Leonardo DiCaprio.
by Graham Johnson
That time of year has come again - awards season. America is atwitter with buzz about the Golden Globes and Oscars, as well as the awards of the pompously named National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences - the Grammys - which are set to air on CBS Feb. 23.
Attracting considerably less attention are the British Phonographic Industry's Awards, the Brits, which will air on ABC March 6. This is really a pity since the nominees of the Brits are, for the most part, far more deserving than those of the Grammys. Everyone's known for years that the Grammys are decided by a bunch of out-of-touch old men who vote for whatever they heard on the radio that morning.
The British, however, take popular music more seriously than Americans - the UK buys more records per capita than any other nation - and the Brit Awards nominees tend to reflect this.
In what proves to be a telling fact, none of the albums nominated by the Brits in their domestic category appear anywhere in the list of the Grammys' equivalent categories. This disparity reflects the current indifference of American record buyers to British rock.
Hip-hop is the one area of pop music where Americans are ahead of the British, but it is largely ignored by the Grammys. The exception to this is Lauryn Hill, who is nominated in 13 categories, including the coveted Album of the Year. It's a foregone conclusion that she'll be taking that one home with her.
Hill's solo debut, The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill was a huge success among buyers and critics in 1998. The other nominees are lightweight by comparison: Madonna's Ray of Light and Sheryl Crow's The Globe Sessions. Shania Twain's presence is simply mystifying. What is most notable is that all the nominees for Artist of the Year are women, if you count the female-fronted Garbage.
The Best British Album nominees put Americans to shame. The Manic Street Preachers' This Is My Truth, Tell Me Yours and Massive Attack's Mezzanine are both brooding, challenging records, although of very different styles. International Velvet by the Welsh band Catatonia, fronted by the alluring Cerys Matthews, is replete with catchy melodies and jangly guitars in the Britpop tradition, but was ignored upon its release stateside. I've Been Expecting You is the second album by Robbie Williams, who has transformed from Take That heartthrob into a self-spoofing credible rock star. Also nominated is the debut album by Gomez, Bring it On, which has already won the prestigious Mercury Music Prize.
The Grammy nominees for Record of the Year are featherweight and predictable. Receiving nods are bombastic soundtrack ballads by Cˇline Dion and the Goo Goo Dolls, Shania Twain's bland "You're Still the One," and Brandy & Monica pretending to be Macca & Jacko on "The Boy is Mine." The only deserving entry is Madonna's "Ray of Light," which has a joy and buoyancy none of her singles has had since "Vogue."
The Best British Single nominees at the Brits for the most part echo those in the album category: Manic Street Preachers' dark "If You Tolerate This Your Children Will Be Next," Massive Attack's engrossing "Teardrop," and Cornershop's "Brimful of Asha" are all excellent. Robbie Williams is nominated for two: the lighter-waving ballad "Angels" and the superior James Bond pastiche "Millennium." My bet is on Catatonia's "Road Rage," which juxtaposes cooing soft verses with an angry but catchy cathartic chorus.
The one area in which the Grammys and Brits agree is that of female singers. Sheryl Crow, former soap starlet Natalie Imbruglia and Lauryn Hill are nominated for both awards. Des'ree and PJ Harvey are the best choices in the Best British Female category at the Brits; their competition are pseudo-soul singers and teen sensation Billie.
There is only one overlap, however, between the Brits' Best International Male and the Grammy's Best Male Vocal Performance: Eagle-Eye Cherry, who is probably the best choice at either ceremony. Robbie Williams is the obvious choice of Best British Male at the Brits - he's certainly more charismatic than the competition - but frontman-turned-solo Bernard Butler of Suede also released a strong record last year.
Nowhere is there a greater disparity than in the group categories. The Brit Awards nominees for Best International Group include the French band Air, Irish family group the Corrs, REM and the Beastie Boys. For the Grammys' Best Performance by a Duo or Group, we have Aerosmith, the Goo Goo Dolls, the Dave Matthews Band, novelty popsters in the Barenaked Ladies and the Brian Setzer Orchestra.
Both ceremonies also have awards for new artists, although the Brits seem unfortunately dominated in these by trivial pop acts like Five and B*witched. The Grammys are plagued by the same problem, but even more inexplicable is that nearly none of the nominees really qualify as a new artist. The Dixie Chicks, Andrea Bocelli and Lauryn Hill (with the Fugees) released albums in the first half of this decade and the Backstreet Boys released a single in 1995, leaving Natalie Imbruglia as the only true new artist.
Whatever the nominations, both awards ceremonies draw on bankable pop acts to attract ratings. Performers at the Grammys include Lauryn Hill, Alanis Morrissette and country superstar Vince Gill; the Brits' performers will include not only the Manic Street Preachers and a Eurythmics reunion, but Irish boy band Boyzone and co-ed dance act Steps.
Copyright © 1998, The Oberlin Review.
Volume 127, Number 14, February 19, 1998
Contact us with your comments and suggestions.