Batman and the Oscars
I was reading http://movies.msn.com/oscars/point-counter-point/ article about "The Dark Knight" and any supposed snubs it received during the Oscars, and was prompted to write back a response. Since I had planned to write an LJ about the subject anyway (and since I feel guilty for going so long without posting), I decided to just respost my response for anyone who still reads this thing to see.
To David Fear and Don Kaye:
First off, I wanted to thank you for the entertaining and well thought-out arguments presented in this article. (I also feel that the fact that this conversation is even taking place proves that great or not, "The Dark Knight" is the best superhero movie ever made, as you couldn't even make a reasonable argument for other superhero movies being Best Picture material.)
I think the Oscars definitely snubbed "The Dark Knight" in the picture and director caterories (and to a lesser extent in the Adapted Screenplay area). I am not saying it should have won either; but I do think one of the five slots should have gone to the film and Christopher Nolan, respectively. Christopher Nolan not only put together a movie that was technically well-made (despite some in my opinion minor flaws), but it was his vision that steered every aspect of the film. If Peter Jackson can be nominated and recognized for his work on "Lord of the Rings" (which I adore), I think Nolan should be similarly recognized with a nomination for his complete reinvention and reinvigoration of the Batman film franchise. Like a great director, Nolan's personality comes across in the film without distracting from the story, which is something I cannot say for some other supposedly great filmmakers (Ron Howard). Although everyone worked hard on the movie, Nolan is clearly the reason it turned out as good as it did, and he should have been recognized by the Academy in the form of a nomination.
As for Best Picture, well:
"The Dark Knight" should have been nominated. Period. The end.
Why, you ask? Well, for starters it is a very well made movie. Even with the flaws, you cannot point to any aspect of the film as being entirely bad, as most flaw are counterbalanced by flashes of briliance in the same area. You may not love Christian Bale's Batman rasp (I don't), but it doesn't kill his performance. All the acting is generally good, and as his shiney post-humus Oscar proves, Heath Ledger's Joker was extraordinary. Maybe the Hong Kong section goes on a tad too long, but overall the pacing in the film is excellent and I genuinely had an edge-of-my-seat feeling during the entire 2 1/2 hour runtime. The nominations in the technical categories prove the Academy (and specifically the voting members who work on things like sound and editing for a living) realizes that all of those aspects are very solidly done.
The same is true for the other Best Picture nominees. However, the reason "The Dark Knight" deserved a nomination over an overrated, overlong film like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is that "Knight" manages to transcend the sum of its parts. The film as a whole is better than any one of its elements. The pieces add up to something greater, something exciting, something new. That is the kind of film I believe the Academy should be recognizing; a film that is not only well put together, but challenges the boundaries of film and its genre to become something more. I believe that is why "Slumdog Millionairre" proved almost unbeatable during this awards season; it put its parts together in a way that was new and exciting, that held your attention and made you feel you hadn't seen anything like it before (although like all movies, an analysis of its parts will reveal dozens of inspirations). "The Dark Knight" does this. It is smarter and better than any superhero movie that has come before, and honestly smarter than most films this year. It is not cold images recorded on film; it is alive. Is it more alive than "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather?" Of course not. Is it more alive than "Benjamin Button" or "Frost/Nixon?" Most definitely.
In the end, I'm not surprised "The Dark Knight" was ignored by the Academy. But for an organization that purports to celebrate the very best in filmmaking, I am disappointed that in recent years politics and snobbery have had more influence on nominations/winners than actual merit. Your
http://movies.msn.com/oscars/worst-winners-ever/
has a feature on the least deserving winners of each of the major trophies, and almost all of them are from within the last 10 years. I think looking back, "The Dark Knight" will be better remembered and respected than some of the films that Oscar lavished nominations and praise on, and that is sad. Not for "The Dark Knight" as much as for the Academy. After all, if you can get an Oscar without actually being the best, what does that little gold statuette really mean?
Sincerely,
Jared Wietbrock
To David Fear and Don Kaye:
First off, I wanted to thank you for the entertaining and well thought-out arguments presented in this article. (I also feel that the fact that this conversation is even taking place proves that great or not, "The Dark Knight" is the best superhero movie ever made, as you couldn't even make a reasonable argument for other superhero movies being Best Picture material.)
I think the Oscars definitely snubbed "The Dark Knight" in the picture and director caterories (and to a lesser extent in the Adapted Screenplay area). I am not saying it should have won either; but I do think one of the five slots should have gone to the film and Christopher Nolan, respectively. Christopher Nolan not only put together a movie that was technically well-made (despite some in my opinion minor flaws), but it was his vision that steered every aspect of the film. If Peter Jackson can be nominated and recognized for his work on "Lord of the Rings" (which I adore), I think Nolan should be similarly recognized with a nomination for his complete reinvention and reinvigoration of the Batman film franchise. Like a great director, Nolan's personality comes across in the film without distracting from the story, which is something I cannot say for some other supposedly great filmmakers (Ron Howard). Although everyone worked hard on the movie, Nolan is clearly the reason it turned out as good as it did, and he should have been recognized by the Academy in the form of a nomination.
As for Best Picture, well:
"The Dark Knight" should have been nominated. Period. The end.
Why, you ask? Well, for starters it is a very well made movie. Even with the flaws, you cannot point to any aspect of the film as being entirely bad, as most flaw are counterbalanced by flashes of briliance in the same area. You may not love Christian Bale's Batman rasp (I don't), but it doesn't kill his performance. All the acting is generally good, and as his shiney post-humus Oscar proves, Heath Ledger's Joker was extraordinary. Maybe the Hong Kong section goes on a tad too long, but overall the pacing in the film is excellent and I genuinely had an edge-of-my-seat feeling during the entire 2 1/2 hour runtime. The nominations in the technical categories prove the Academy (and specifically the voting members who work on things like sound and editing for a living) realizes that all of those aspects are very solidly done.
The same is true for the other Best Picture nominees. However, the reason "The Dark Knight" deserved a nomination over an overrated, overlong film like "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is that "Knight" manages to transcend the sum of its parts. The film as a whole is better than any one of its elements. The pieces add up to something greater, something exciting, something new. That is the kind of film I believe the Academy should be recognizing; a film that is not only well put together, but challenges the boundaries of film and its genre to become something more. I believe that is why "Slumdog Millionairre" proved almost unbeatable during this awards season; it put its parts together in a way that was new and exciting, that held your attention and made you feel you hadn't seen anything like it before (although like all movies, an analysis of its parts will reveal dozens of inspirations). "The Dark Knight" does this. It is smarter and better than any superhero movie that has come before, and honestly smarter than most films this year. It is not cold images recorded on film; it is alive. Is it more alive than "Citizen Kane" or "The Godfather?" Of course not. Is it more alive than "Benjamin Button" or "Frost/Nixon?" Most definitely.
In the end, I'm not surprised "The Dark Knight" was ignored by the Academy. But for an organization that purports to celebrate the very best in filmmaking, I am disappointed that in recent years politics and snobbery have had more influence on nominations/winners than actual merit. Your
http://movies.msn.com/oscars/worst-winners-ever/
has a feature on the least deserving winners of each of the major trophies, and almost all of them are from within the last 10 years. I think looking back, "The Dark Knight" will be better remembered and respected than some of the films that Oscar lavished nominations and praise on, and that is sad. Not for "The Dark Knight" as much as for the Academy. After all, if you can get an Oscar without actually being the best, what does that little gold statuette really mean?
Sincerely,
Jared Wietbrock