As I said most anticipated blockbuster of the year and ahead of its release was even considered to be a major Oscar contender in a variety of categories including Best Picture and Director (note the use of the word “was”). Now, before the movie has even screened for all critics (tonight’s screening is the first all media across the country), it’s already being stepped on and not merely based on its quality as a movie, but in relation to its chances at the Oscars, though it can be hard to tell the difference.
The chirping began back on October 27 when The Hollywood Reporter awards columnist Scott Feinberg, who was predicting Interstellar to win Best Picture and Nolan to win Best Director before seeing the movie, posted an article headlined “Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ May Not Be the Awards Juggernaut Everyone Expected“. After a bunch of hemming and hawing, Feinberg ends things saying “the suspicion that I had a week ago — that this film might even win — is now gone.”
That article was posted after only New York and Los Angeles critics had seen the film. A few additional screenings have been held since in both NY and LA, but tonight’s all media will be the first time the majority of critics lay their eyes on Nolan’s new film, a day before it hits select IMAX screens ahead of its Friday, November 7 release, but the negativity continues to swirl.
Over at Hollywood Elsewhere, Jeff Wells is essentially pronouncing the death of the film’s Oscar chances, but you strip words such as “Oscar” and “awards” from his piece and it reads like a lambasting of the film itself, which is where things begin to get confused and increased negativity toward any movie dealing with the awards spotlight begins to fester.
It’s easy to imagine a conversation in this environment beginning with, “I really liked Interstellar,” and the reply being, “Yeah? Well it’s not going to win any Oscars!” Uh, yeah? Your point?
I understand and can respect the idea of Oscar prognostication, it’s what I do year round, but it seems for many it’s not so much an attempt to predict which films will win, but to accentuate the negative when it comes to films some either don’t want to win or don’t think will win. Sure, maybe a film seems less likely to be up the Academy’s alley… Films such as Paul Thomas Anderson‘s Inherent Vice, David Fincher‘s Gone Girl and even Wes Anderson‘s The Grand Budapest Hotel seem to have their supporters in both the critical community and Academy, but they don’t have the appearance of being “Academy movies” the way something such as The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything. So what’s an Oscar prognosticator to do? Chop down any perceived (or prospective) leader deemed unworthy while propping up those that seem to be the more appropriate contenders.
There is already a battle over Boyhood, a film many perceive to be a frontrunner. Others are drawing lines in the sand suggesting it’s Birdman that should win before films such as A Most Violent Year, Ava DuVernay‘s Selma, Angelina Jolie‘s Unbroken and many others have even been seen.
Unbroken is already negatively considered by many to be Oscar fodder with its World War II trappings, and certainly it’s a subject matter often considered ripe for Academy attention, but hell I just started reading Lauren Hillenbrand’s book from which it is based and only 70 some pages in I’m hooked. If the film, with a screenplay co-written by the Coen brothers, can tap into the interest I felt reading those first few pages then this could be one hell of a movie. But… World War II… Oscar fodder… NO!!!!
Maybe Interstellar won’t win any Oscars. Maybe it won’t even be nominated. Maybe Boyhood will win everything, but the idea it matters in any way shape or form when it comes to the conversation over a film’s quality is ridiculous. It’s bothersome when I see a film’s quality being confused with its award potential as if they are one and the same, especially when everyone writing about the awards season realizes it’s not about what movies are the “best”, but simply those that receive the best campaign push, contain filmmakers considered to be most “deserving” and are the most palatable films of the lot.
There’s nothing wrong with this, but let’s not confuse the issue and use our time predicting as an opportunity to cut a film down, because nit-picking the negative aspects of a movie as reason for why it won’t win an Oscar is to completely misunderstand the process. Sure, reviews can help a film along its way, but films such as The King’s Speech and Forrest Gump don’t win Best Picture because they are the “best” movies, and if you need me to tell you that then you probably shouldn’t be predicting the Oscars in the first place.
You want to write about something of value? Prop up Tom Hardy in Locke, Jack O’Connell in Starred Up, Carrie Coon in Gone Girl, the overlooked A Most Wanted Man and The Drop and the fun to come once everyone sees Wild Tales. That would be time well spent and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
