In a recent article, AP writer Sandy Cohen discusses the increasing prevalence of Hollywood honoring evil characters at the Academy Awards.
Here are just a couple of quotes from the article:
This season’s crop of nefarious characters highlights a long-standing pattern among academy voters of tending toward the dark side.
…academy voters seem to be embracing the unsavory even more of late, reflecting a change in what kinds of roles might be considered Oscar-worthy, says Tom O’Neill, a writer for the awards-tracking website, TheEnvelope.com.
“We’re seeing cutthroat Hollywood exposing themselves in a clear trend … a broader acceptance that these (evil) roles are artistic,” he says. “We’re seeing more artistic movies become darker.”
And
Lang thinks the growing number – and growing appreciation – of villainous characters may be “sort of a postmodern phenomena.”
“Things have gotten really complicated in our world,” he says. “I’m sure they always were, but there was a certain time in the movies when it was black hats and white hats, good guys and bad guys, and I think that has changed … It comes with this age.”
Do you think this is a “postmodern phenomena” and, if so, why? Do you think the days of clear “black hats and white hats” are over? How does this fit with the popularity of Harry Potter?
Charlie on 
Tom on 
Moe W on 
Steve Morrison on 
Moe W on 
Arabella on 
Red Rocker on 
Loading ...
{ 73 comments… read them below or add one }
The greatest depiction of evil I’ve ever seen in film is Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood. Plainview is a fascinating character because he’s so human and so complex yet so terrifying. He doesn’t even start off as an evil character. At first he’s simply a canny businessman and a dedicated family man but his lust for power and his misanthropy feed his inner darkness until finally he descends into a malevolent madness. In disowning HW, he destroys the only good left in himself. He truly is a villain of operatic proportions.
Interesting theory – that there is a tendency in Hollywood to see dark or evil characters as more artistic or noteworthy.
If you examine the evidence, however, it doesn’t seem to strongly support the hypothesis. At least, not in as far as it applies to this year.
Take this year’s contenders for Best Actor: Jeff Bridges as a washed-up country and western singer struggling for redemption; George Clooney as a corporate hatchetman who disccovers his heart – and perhaps his soul. Colin Firth as an English professor who is mourning the death of his lover; Jeremy Renner as a bomb defuser whose recklessness is endangering the lives of his team. And last but not least, Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. It’s not really a spectrum of Evil with a capital E. Not even with a small e, with the possible exception of Clooney, but his journey is towards love and humanity, not in the opposite direction. In fact, I would say that this year’s nominees are more indicative of flawed men with a strong inner core of goodness. With a fair bit of redemption and a strong does of heroism thrown in.
And that’s just the Best Actor nominees. We also get Christopher Plummer as Leo Tolstoy, Matt Damon in a heroic role in Invictus, Sandra Bullock ditto in The Blind Side and Meryl Streep as Julia Child!
Doesn’t look like a pantheon of evil to me.
I can hear all my Opera-composing forefathers laughing right now. A postmodern phenomena? How about a postprehistoric phenomena. I really think this is not so much about societal or Hollywood elitist’s attraction to evil characters as much as it is about the youth of the medium of film. Film in comparison to all other mediums is still in it’s toddler stage (around 125 years) compared to the centuries of art before it. Lang does point out in the article that an appreciation of the dark side in art has existed in other mediums. If I look at the whole spectrum of the history of cinema – there certainly is ample examples of noir and the appreciation of it – going back to the silent era.
I’d be interested more in the actual scientific data of this postmodern phenomena than in a few people’s opinions. The article seems to be a thought explored superficially by the reporter as opposed to a real empirical study. And that annoys me. Art is not fluff. Art is serious business and should be treated with more gravity when making such broad statements. Whenever I hear some journalistic remark about how gaming increases violence in children, or too much tv makes people dumb, or too much appreciation of evil characters – I want to say – show me the studies. Otherwise I find it propoganda for an agenda.
As a person who has tread the boards in portrayal of both sides of the human psyche – I can say that it is more fun to play an ambiguously moral character than a straight arrow – most of the time. Sometimes it’s not so fun – especially if you enact that role over and over as part of your standard fach. It can creep subconsiously into your life, which is a signal to rotate that role out of your rep for awhile.
But overall – this affinity for evil is not really an affinity at all. It’s more of a straightforward affirmation of what is virtuous. How can we know what is goodness without the full extent of evil. And the quality of an actor’s portrayal of this evil is an acceptable and desirable measure of this affirmation of good.
Actors like to play villains because the characters are juicier. Juicier characters make for great performances, which make for awards nominations…. Playing “good” is actually very hard; it’s hard to make “good” interesting onscreen.
That being said, I’d be much more concerned about what movies like Saw and Hostel say about modern culture than about something like There Will Be Blood. If Mr. Cohen wants to make his point, he might want to look not at what’s being awarded, but at what’s being greenlit.
I suppose Christoph Waltz is the one mostly generating such talk, especially after Javier Bardem a couple years ago. But as Rowling said, roughly, you have to be willing to depict evil in the strongest possible terms in order to show how nefarious it truly is. Waltz’s performance in was riveting, even entrancing, but hardly sympathetic. It took Tarantino years to find somebody who could so perfectly put such a genteel face on evil.
I do think the trend is toward more layered villains, though, and more layered heroes. But I think that’s okay. I’ve had trouble seeing most villains as simply black ever since I first encountered Gollum as a five-year-old. And usually I think people like Voldemort or, if you watch LOST, Martin Keamy, are harder to take seriously as actual characters.
Watched Dark Knight again last night, for the umpteenth time. And like every other time, I tried to discern Heath Ledger behind the white make-up. Watching so closely, I finally realized that one of the reasons his Joker makes such an impact is that he is not a cartoonish black-and-white evil. He uses his face muscles (and body language and voice) to convey different emotions. There is a lot going on in there, behind the make-up. A multi-layered performance, to borrow Erin’s terminology. I also caught the end of There Will Be Blood the other night. Mesmerizing performance by Daniel Day Lewis. Repulsive as all out, but you can’t take your eyes off of him. Like Ledger, he brings his humanity to the depiction of evil. They are neither of them monsters; they’re men who have transformed themselves into monsters.
I wish – I really wish – that Fiennes could have had the lines to do the same with Voldemort.
Well, when we hear “Evil,” we tend to see absolutes (at least I think so…). Hardcore, absolute evil is not that compelling except as spectacle. We have enough curiosity to peer into darkness, looking to have our darkest fears confirmed, or perhaps explored in some kind of safe way. Villains likeSauron, Voldemort or early-Darth Vader fill this void quite nicely. But we want them to be significantly larger than life threats that can really destroy everything.
But, what passes for evil in real life is mostly a character evolution that can be hard to trace or categorize, a la Snape. All those characters listed for Oscar noms are an admixture of good and bad character traits. Much like our issues sorting through these in ourselves and others in real life, acting them is far more complicated than simply looking big and badass. If you can turn that exploration into a narrative that makes sense, then it is immensely interesting to watch.
I’m more fascinated by attempts to humanize or empathize with personalities that we have historically characterized as the epitome of Evil. Harry’s perception of Snape follows this trajectory, as does the story of Hannibal Lecter. Both appear to be and are people that are immensely terrible, and terrifying. But they also genuinely take on character traits that we see as unfailingly good — self sacrifice or erudite and sophisticated.
The only villains I like who are all out evil are probably Landa and Voldemort. As I’ve said I enjoyed Fiennes’ depiction of “the Dark Lord”. He captures the wryness of the Voldemort in the novel. The only other actors I can imagine playing him are Daniel Day-Lewis (who can just vanish into a part) and David Bowie, who plays charismatic, self-loving ar**holes extremely well. I think the reason not everybody got the right vibe off Fiennes’s Voldemort is because he didn’t take the character seriously. He said in an interview that he did it “because it would be fun to do.” Every actor should have fun playing a character (Heath Ledger seems to be having a great time in The Dark Knight) but I think for Fiennes, that’s all it was.
I’m not sure Ledger was having a great time playing the Joker. From all I’ve heard, absorbing himself in the part was having a negative effect on him personally & led to a lot of his sleep deprivation problems.
Anyway, I think there are two extremes to be avoided. On the one hand, having totally unrealistic characters rigidly defined as either good or evil. And on the other hand, totally warping the distinctions between good & evil, so that the idea that comes across is that the evil characters aren’t really so bad & the good characters really aren’t good.
I think where post-modernism plays into this is when things are so thoroughly deconstructed that only villains end up looking authentic & true to themselves whereas heroes only end up looking like hypocrites.
What? No mention of Don Giovanni or Faust?
I believe C. S. Lewis once said that it’s easier to write a convincing “evil” character than a convincing “good” one for the very simple reason that, to come up with an evil personality, you simply have to imagine removing a few good qualities from your own personality. (Morality, accountability, self control, courtesy…) Whereas, to imagine a truly “good” character, you probably will have to add some additional good qualities that you lack–which is a lot more challenging, morally speaking, unless you happen to be a saint. (It’s perhaps worth pointing out that George MacDonald’s novels feature fantastically drawn “good” characters and flat, stagey villains.)
Red Rocker @3 — well said, and quite right.
Janet, ditto.
Joivre, amen and amen. Of course, it’s nothing to do with postmodernism. Some of the greatest roles that actors live and breathe for are either evil in themselves, or enmeshed in moral downfall. Let the names prove my point: Faust. Lear. Edmund. Oedipus. Macbeth. Lady Macbeth. Godunov. Giovanni. Hamlet. And so on.
Black-hatting and white-hatting might be over, except in classic-style westerns. But then, how prevalent has it ever been in art, really? Even if we restrict ourselves to film–Casablanca certainly sees most people switching hat colours between black, white, and gray. Regardless of ‘good-guy’, ‘bad-guy’ dichotomies, you must have protagonist/antagonist, or you have no story. (Or at least, no story that translates well to screen.) In that sense, we will always have black-hat, white-hat, even if the white hat is on an evil character.
As for trends in ‘darker’ movies–I dunno. When you have Hitchcock as screen history, it seems like ‘dark’ has been around a while.
Evil is small. Evils is petty and predictable. Evil is uninteresting and limited. It is an absence of Good.
Goodness is full of freedom, diversity and responsibility.
A good villain needs some Good to be good.
While that may be the case in reality Korg, it should not be in fiction.
Actors traditionally get nominations for playing a role against type. Or for playing someone who’s disabled. I thought every actor knew that if you wanted a nomination, play a baddie. It’s not a postmodern phenomenon.
But there is something compelling about an evil character. We’re watching someone we could be (or want to be if the shackles were cast off).
I think Snape got away from JKR a bit. He was so well drawn, with a mixture of good and evil that readers found him compelling when she found him repulsive.
Having said that, I agree with Korg that Evil is banal and uninteresting. It should not have the attraction we find in it.
I need a definition of when postmodern times started.
Wikipedia says of Postmodernism:
It is used in critical theory to refer to a point of departure for works of literature, drama, architecture, cinema, journalism and design, as well as in marketing and business and in the interpretation of history, law, culture and religion in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
So are we talking since the 70′s? 80′s?
I am tempted to actually do a data analysis of Oscar winners, comparing say the 30′s-60′s vs 70′s till the present to see the relative frequency of “evil” roles. I’m not that interested in the outcome, but I’m really irritated by people, such as the author of the article, who cherry pick their examples to support their point. Random samples, anyone?
Here’s a rough list of “evil” winners and nominations for the Academy Award for Best Actor from the first award ceremony to 1930. I’m not including all the baddies. It looks like 9 out of 12 are naughty.
1. Emil Jannings, Best Actor as Sergeus Alexander in The Last Command (1928) is a silent film, written by John F. Goodrich and Herman J. Mankiewicz, from a story by Lajos Biró. When Sergeus Alexander finds one of his aides trying on his overcoat he instructs his guards, “If this happens again remove the coat and shoot the contents.”
2. Warner Baxter, Best Actor from In Old Arizona, 1929 – Although a hero in the film – the character is a twenty-five year old desperado in the Texas-Mexico border country. He kills for sport and is responsible for at least eighteen deaths.
3. Lionel Barrymore, Best Actor for A Free Soul is a 1931 Pre-Code film which tells the story of an alcoholic defense attorney who must defend his daughter’s ex-boyfriend on a charge of murdering the mobster she had started a relationship with; a mobster whom her father had previously got an acquittal for on a murder charge.
4. Frederic March, Best Actor in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in 1931. The film tells of Dr. Jekyll (Fredric March), a kind doctor who experiments with drugs because he’s certain that within each man lurks impulses for both good and evil.
5. Charles Laughton, Best Actor, in The Private Life of Henry VIII in 1933. He executed his wife. Enough said.
6. Victor McLaglen, Best Actor, in the The Informer, 1935. A brutish but well-meaning Irishman, Gypo Nolan (Victor McLaglen), informs on his best friend Frankie McPhillip (Wallace Ford), who is a member of the Irish Republican Army, in order to collect the reward of £20 and sail to America with his girlfriend Katie Madden (Margot Grahame). The film traces his conscience-stricken emotional disintegration that eventually leads him to give himself away.
7. Charles Boyer, Nominated Best Actor, in Conquest, 1937. Boyer played one of most evil men in history – Napoleon Bonaparte.
9. James Cagney, Nominated for Best Actor in Angels with Dirty Faces, 1938. A story about childhood friends – one of whom is a notorious gangster and the other a priest. Guess who got nominated.
All of the above was culled and pasted from Wikipedia – and only until 1930.
Thanks for getting us a baseline for comparison purposes Joivre.
I’m not sure that Napoleon would count as a baddie – but I think it would depend on how he was written: hero or megalomaniac. I’m also not sure about the DA – you could say he was just doing his job. And not everyone thinks kiling your wife because she’s atanding in the way of your next marriage is a bad thing – at least not when a king does it. So looking at it conservatively, I’d say somewhere between 6/12 and 9/12 are villains. That’s from 50% to 75%.
I decided that the best sampe of “postmodern” times would be the last ten years, so I looked up the Best Actor and Best Actress winners from 2000 to 2009. That is a sample size of 20. This is what we get:
2000: Kevin Spacey in American Beauty / Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry
He’s confused, she’s struggling for identity; both are victims. Neither is a villain.
2001: Russell Crowe in Gladiator / Julia Roberts in Erin Brokovitch
Hero / Heroine. It doesn’t get any easier.
2002: Adrien Brody in The Pianist / Nocole Kidman in The Hours
Both victims, one of whom survives, the other one doesn’t. No villains here.
2003: Sean Penn in Mystic River / Charlize Theron in Monster
He kills an innocent man, although the murder is explicable; she kills many semi-innocent men, with an attempt at an explanation. Both villains.
2004: Jamie Foxx in Ray / Hilary Swank (again) in Million Dollar Baby
He’s a famous musician, with some flaws he overcomes. She’s an out and out heroine.
2005: George Clooney in Syriana / Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line
Clooney plays his usual decent man caught in a corrupt world. Witherspoon does a Lily Potter, redeeming her man. No villains here.
2006: Forest Whitaker in the Last King of Scotland / Helen Mirren in The Queen
Idi Amin and the Queen. One villain, one very nice lady.
2007: Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood / Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
One great villain. One sweet singer.
2008: Sean Penn in Milk / Kate Winslet in The Reader
Penn is a social activist hero. Winslet is an ex-SS guard who helps kill a lot of people. One hero. One villain.
2009: I’ll guess Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. He’s on a redemption path, and she’s a bit of a heroine. But there isn’t villain in the whole ensemble of 10 nominees.
So here’s the math:
Villains = 5
Heroes / Heroines = 5
Mixed or Flawed characters = 9
Queen of England = 1
5 / 20 = 25%
Comparing this to Joivre’s data, we have 50% yo 75% villains in the sample from the 30s, and 25% villains in a sample from the “postmodern” 00s.
50% (conservative estimate) is bigger than 25%. If anyone has time, they can do the analysis to see if it’s significantly bigger.
The data would warrant one of two conclusions:
There was a greater tendency for Oscar winners to be villainous in the pre-modern times
or
There wasn’t that big a difference in the tendency for Oscar winners to be villainous between the pre- and post-modern times. If there was a difference, then it’s in the direction of there being more villains in pre-modern times.
Put that prevalence in your hat and wear it, Mr. Cohen.
Anybody seen Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus in Gladiator? Once seen, not soon forgotten! The guy was robbed of an Oscar.
Excellent list and analysis, Red Rocker…. Although why does it somehow remind me of Screwtape Delivers a Toast, bemoaning the fact that all the good sinners are in the past… You certainly made the point, and made it well!
(One tiny note: George Clooney was Best Supporting Actor in 2005; Philip Seymour Hoffman won Best Actor for Capote. But I don’t think that changes your tally at all.)
Now if someone wants to take on the popular (if vulgar) “the gimp wins the Oscar” canard, plus the concept of the “Holocaust slot” for winning movies (for instance, this year’s Kavi — made by a friend of mine, let me say — is expected by some to win best Live Action Short because, being about human trafficking, it’s the next closest thing to a movie about the Holocaust)……
Good point Janet – though I think I got out of the business before I became jaded enough to consider a “Holocaust slot” a viable reality in awards. That turns my stomach.
WWII is perhaps the most evil period in the history of mankind. I don’t believe art created about it is simply fodder for the dinner table. If it is awarded for it’s artistic quality of presentation, “Holocaust slot” or not – I am pleased and proud that it wins. I personally have never seen a movie set in the Holocaust win an award it didn’t deserve.
Oh – and Tom – I loved Phoenix in Gladiator. He made that character so likeable it was scary!
I know. Really charismatic but at the same time psychotic and terrifying. People often describe Phoenix’s Commodus as weak but I don’t think he was. Vulnerable certainly, cowardly certainly but not weak. Much too determined and self-confident.
Yes, Janet, “cause” films are clear favorites for awards. I was stunned when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan for Best Picture. Frankly, I still wonder how that happened; perhaps Spielberg and Hanks had already won too many awards? Because, to quote Dirty Dancing, “nobody puts the Holcaust in a corner.”
Arabella — Here’s what happened with Shakespeare in Love vs. Saving Private Ryan….
(And SPR is really a WWII battle film more than a “Holocaust” film, though of course some crossover….)
While the Oscar ballots were out, screenwriter William Goldman (Butch Cassidy, Princess Bride etc.) wrote a piece about the five nominated movies in Premiere magazine, which was then very widely read within the industry. Well, he absolutely eviscerated Saving Private Ryan, mainly for its logic gaps. He pointed out real problems with story and character and logic that exist in the movie, pointed them out in a very powerful way. Everyone read that article, everyone was talking about it….
And Steven Spielberg won the Best Director Oscar…. and there was his buddy Harrison Ford ready to hand out Best Picture (which indicates that they expected SPR to win)…. and Shakespeare in Love won. I would expect by a very thin margin, but no one knows.
Goldman’s article is reprinted in his book The Big Picture, and you can find all but a couple of pages of it on Google Books — here’s the link.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Zt7TGNB8qyQC&pg=PA247&lpg=PA247&dq=william+goldman+saving+private+ryan&source=bl&ots=qwJLWuQ8LJ&sig=Av3LnJXkDjdNTAg3pDFZwxdovpA&hl=en&ei=b4eRS6ikEIWcswOUkoz9Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCkQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Right you are Janet Maybe I blanked on Hoffman – an amazing actor – because I really wanted to see Ledger win that year. Both for his acting and to make the point.
About Shakespeare in Love, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that it’s win was a triumph of studio advertising. Janet will know more about how that came to be. It was very unexpected, especially against Spielberg who usually wins these things.
Not sure if Phoenix made Commodus likeable. He certainly made him watchable. What a great psychopath.
I posted before I saw Janet’s last comment. Like I said, she knows the story better.
Having said which, I’m disappointed in Goldman.
Meanwhile, there’s another controversy bubbling up this year. Seems one of the producers of The Hurt Locker sent an e-mail asking voters to vote for his movie rather than the “500 million dollar movie”. He got banned from the ceremony for that. The e-mail message didn’t seem that indictable to me, so I’m thinking that the makers of the “500 million dollar movie” may have called in some favours. But again, Janet will know more about it.
You’re right, Red Rocker, I do know a bit more about the HURT LOCKER producer controversy.
First of all, you should know that the Oscars call for only three producers to win the Best Picture award. This in fact stems from SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE had, I think, 5 producers (maybe more), and they all got up to make speeches.
Sometimes producers can ask to make their case that really there were 4 producers and get a 4th person included, but that’s really rare. Well, THE HURT LOCKER did just that. Nicolas Chartier, who financed the movie, was added as a 4th producer for Academy Awards purposes.
But Chartier did something he shouldn’t. He campaigned for his movie by slamming his competitors, specifically AVATAR (he didn’t name AVATAR, but made remarks about “blue people,” etc.). He did this in a widely-distributed email in which he directly asked people to vote for his movie over AVATAR. That’s a no-no. You’re not allowed to knock your competitors’ movies.
Do people do it? Yes. But much more subtly. And they’re not stupid enough to send out an email under their own name doing it.
Chartier, however, did not get banned from the Oscars for that. He got banned for doing it again. He was warned by the Academy that he was doing something that was against the rules, and he went ahead and did it again.
And then they banned him from the ceremony. They did not take his name off the list of award recipients, and if HURT LOCKER wins Best Picture, he will still be awarded an Oscar (later).
Did the Academy do the right thing? Probably not. It’s a bit petty. Would they have done if the producer involved was Harvey Weinstein or Scott Rudin or Steven Spielberg? Very unlikely.
But did the producers of AVATAR, or its studio (Fox) have anything to do with this? I think that’s unlikely. AVATAR’s Oscar campaign has been remarkably clean, and while the various people producing the Oscar show this year (as well as the current president of the Academy) all have ties to Fox, in most cases, they hate either the studio or each other with a passion (one of the Oscar producers this year was a big studio exec who was ousted most nastily some years back and still holds a grudge).
I think someone at the Academy decided they needed to make a statement about negative campaigning, and found a French producer they could use as a scapegoat. And unfortunately, Chartier was dumb enough to play right into their hands by doing what he had been told he shouldn’t do after he had very publicly been chastised for doing just that.
But I do bet some folks at the Academy, now that this has blown up, are *really* hoping AVATAR wins!
It’s a shame. I haven’t seen either movie, but HL< sounds very much like the kind of movie I enjoy: up close and intense. Would hate to see it lose because one of the producers couldn’t be trusted with a Blackberry.
I used to watch the Oscars religiously. Not so much in the last few years – haven’t been going to the movies as much. This year I’m secretly hoping that Colin Firth will win. But since that’s unlikely to happen (see Heath Ledger, above) I’d be content with Jeff Bridges, if only to hear his acceptance speech. And there really are no bad candidates amongst the nominees for Best Actor.
For the other categories I have no preference, although I think Streep has won enough.
Any preferences, Janet? That you’re ok with disclosing?
Not so sure Commodus was a psychopath. He did seem to love his sister and father in a warped sort of way and to a lesser extent, his nephew. Sociopath would be more accurate.
Red Rocker — Meryl’s been nominated more than anyone, but she’s only won two. To my mind, she should win this year. But she won’t.
I would like AVATAR to win, if only because I think it will help studios make the kinds of movies I like to write.
And I opined about the Oscars on my blog, here:
http://quoththemaven.blogspot.com/2010/03/oscars.html
I kind of agree with you Tom. Commodus does have empathy and craves real love, unlike a psychopath for whom love means nothing. I honestly think Commodus’ ills were mostly enviromental. When you are the Emperor – there’s not too many people who call your bluff and you tend to believe your press. I walked away from the film feeling a little sorry for Commodus. He seemed very lonely. Which is an incredible feat for Mr. Phoenix, because he made me like a man who had his son killed and was cruel beyond belief. That’s why his performance was so scary.
After reading your blog, I’m thinking Streep may have a chance after all. Everyone loved Julia Child, and Streep made another popular movie for which she wasn’t nominated, so she could benefit from the 2-1 effect.
Poor Commodus, his daddy never really loved him, and his sister never appreciated his generosity. That’s why he smothered his old man and blackmailed his sister into an incestuous relationship by threatening to kill her young son.
Commodus (sobs): I’m so lonely. No one loves me.
Anonymous heckler: That’s because you killed all your friends and family.
Tom – you might be interested in this article. It talks about how Mr. Phoenix approached the role and how it turned out. I also read another article which I can’t find now – I think it was in Premiere – where he talks about delving into the mind of Commodus.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/may/13/3
Hmmm, I’m beginning to wonder if George C. Scott was right when he called the Oscars nothing but an expletive meat market.
Anyway, I rarely if ever see movies at the theater so I’m never really involved in watching the Oscars to see what the latest & greatest thing supposedly is.
As for holocaust movies always being shoe ins, Life Is Beautiful also lost to Shakespeare in Love.
After reading this article, I’m even more firmly convinced that George C. Scott was right.
Interesting article Revgeorge. I love George C. Scott. One of my favorite George C. Scott moments is the end of the musical number, Torchin’ for Bill, in the 1978 hilarious spoof of movie musicals, Movie Movie. It’s at the very, very end of the clip. So gentlemen, try to concentrate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAdg5fzjwn0&feature=related
Revgeorge – Some people thought Life is Beautiful made light of the Holocaust. There were some inconsistant reviews about the treatment of the subject matter. Roberto Benigni did win Best Actor for it though. Personally, I loved Life is Beautiful. I still do. I don’t know why – I just do. When it comes to watchability – if Saving Private Ryan, Shakespeare in Love and Life is Beautiful were on tv all at the same time – I’d spend my two hours watching Life is Beautiful.
I don’t know, I prefer Ann Reinking in Annie. And was the moment George C. Scott’s or Eli Wallach’s?
It WAS Eli Wallach’s! All these years I thought it was George who said that! Oh well, even I was distracted by that raunchy performance.
I think that the Oscar shenanigans are just what you’d expect when a lot of money rides on the outcome. That doesn’t change the fact that a lot of talent and artistry goes into the making of the product. You almost need to keep the two things – the awards and the movies themselves – separate. And I think everyone here is too old to believe that winning the Oscar means this particular movie or the performance or the script or what have you was better than all the other ones in the same class during that year.
All I’m saying is, the process of selecting “the best” is by its nature doomed to fail, and in this case, deeply flawed. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t some excellent movies out there, some of which are honored by the Oscars.
Red Rocker, I agree that Commodus was an evil man and he certainly got what he deserved but at the same time I couldn’t help but pity him because as Joaquin Phoenix says, he doesn’t comprehend what human life is. He’s very much a product of his time.
The real life Commodus was even more objectionable.
Hang on. I was just tricked into reading The Guardian. Joivre, you scheming Delilah.
Sorry Tom, I have no pity for self-made orphans.
Agree, of course, that Phoenix is a fine actor and did an excellent job with Commodus, especially the self-pity.
Tom – Snip, snip.
I sincerely hope you’re referring to my hair.
Ha! I very insincerely was.
Sincerity is the virtue of the vicious. Nevertheless, you’d better keep away from my anatomy or I might be obliged to beat you with a rolled up copy of The Daily Mail. Ultimate evil!
Somehow – the rolled up Daily Mail doesn’t scare me so much – but I’ll make a mental note out of courtesy.
Quite right that award ceremonies are nice and all but hold no ultimate authority in judgement of a piece of art, film or otherwise. The fact that money is made on winners has a lot of bearing in an art that is still run by businessmen. Though yes, Mozart wanted to be paid for his work – and that’s a big reason why he composed his piano concerti – ultimately it is the artist’s act of creation that is the fulfillment – not the prize. Someday – when little or no money is to be made with film, the businessmen will quietly leave and let cinema finally be the full-fledged art it deserves to be.
Joivre — If I may beg to differ oh so respectfully….. I find that for most artists who have to pay rent/mortgage/taxes/tuition/utilities/etc. by the proceeds of their creations, indeed the act of creation is not the fulfillment. Oh, it may be partially filling. But without the prize, it is as painful as it is fulfilling.
Artists who have no bills to pay (who have patrons, as it were) may feel differently.
I fully agree that there is a baseline and one should be paid, as I said above. One must be out of poverty. And art is not created in and for a vacuum. But I do stand by the idea – that the act of creation is the essence of art. And creating art solely for a prize places conditions on the piece of art, taints the process and thus stunts the true expression or it.
But we’re probably just different that way – no two artists are exactly the same. And also – although I do believe in Capitalism – I believe Art should be subsidized by the government with no strings attached. Art is the reflection of the society it is created in – it is that important.
Believe me though – I see what you are saying.
Indeed yes. There’s no room for art in a Communist society since the aim of Communism is the dissolution of the individual into the whole, a truly depressing thought. Capitalism, for all its faults is the only system in which the individual can truly have room to function. The aim of life is self development.
Capitalism is good because it enables us to assist those around us easier. The aim of life is assistance of others not self-development.
I think there are many different life aims – or goals. There is some agreement amongst thinkers about the basic set: survival, intimacy, freedom or autonomy, achievement, creativity, spirituality, feeling good, inner peace, social connection, knowledge, play, to name a few. Self-development would fall under many of those headings, as would helping others (depending on your motive). Point is, different people value or prioritize different goals in life (although we can’t totally ignore any of them).
Red Rocker,
Yes, of course- all good things. I was trying to say that if self-development is the goal a positive result is less likely. eg. someone studying a martial art to develop their fighting ability isn’t likey to gain the same results as someone who learns a martial art to protect their friends/family from aggression… to my point of veiw, anyway.
Maybe I’m being pedantic.
Funny you should say that – I was conscious that I was being awfully pedantic – or an awful pedant – as I wrote my comment.
Recently I’ve been looking at the Good Lives Model (GLM) of rehabilitation, which argues that it’s not the goals themselves (the so-called “Goods”) but how we pursue them – how we conduct ourselves – that can lead to positive or negative consequences.
But enough of me being pedantic. The point was that artists need to eat. Unlike Joivre, I don’t think movies would improve if moviemakers didn’t need to make their livelihood from their work. I also think that art is way too important to be left in the hands of bureaucrats.
Don’t muzzle the oxen while its treading out the grain.
However, many blockbuster movies and the marketing/merchandising thereof smacks hard of ultimate greed.
Subsidies for the Arts is one of the single most important components in the culture of a country anywhere in the world. There is not a single U.S. national institution of higher Arts that does not receive a portion of it’s budget from the miniscule amount of subsidies out there. Whether it’s 2% for the Metropolitan Opera’s budget or 50% for the Alvin Ailey Dance Troupe or 100% for an inner city music school. Without national subsidies, Opera Houses, Chamber Music Festivals, Theatres, Contemporary Composers, Dance Troupes, Galleries, and Symphonies would quickly run into the Red and out of our towns and cities. The hardest hit would be those in economically disadvantaged and rural parts of this country. The Arts in the United States employs about 5 million people. 5 million. Some cultural institutions receive more money than others depending upon the exposure of the arts they give to the disadvantaged in this country who would otherwise not be able to afford it.
The film industry already receives some subsidies – however, other countries, Canada in particular, offer incredible subsidies to filming in their country and therefore is drawing huge amounts of film business out of the U.S. and into Canada. From an article from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law Journal -
“The data on this alarming trend of film production moving abroad is very clear and very ominous,” Professor Wright reports. An important adjunct to Professor Wright’s thorough legal review of Canada’s film incentives is a recently released report from the Hollywood-based Center for Entertainment Industry Data and Research (CEIDR, http://www.ceidr.org), “The Global Success of Production Tax Incentives and the Migration of Feature Film Production from the U.S. to the World, Year 2005 Production Report.” According to CEIDR, U.S. economic losses from just “runaway” feature film production alone are a staggering $23 billion and 47,000 jobs annually. In comparison, the Monitor Report, the first real study of the phenomenon, stated in 1999 that the economic cost to the U.S. from all runaway production for 1998, the first year Canada’s subsidies were in effect, was $10.3 billion and 25,000 jobs.
Instead of the U.S. attacking WTO and Canada regarding their subsidies for film – why aren’t we offering the same subsidies to our own artists?
Do I think subsidies to filmmakers would improve the quality of the output of films in this country? Heck ya! When I walk down my street – I see Latinos, African-Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders and Caucasions. When I look at the upcoming starlets on the cover of Vanity Fair – I see only caucasions. Something’s wrong here! Would I trust a beauraucrat to disperse to subsidies to people of color ? I voted for my president who is of color and yes, I would. I bet I would also see more people who are over 40 in films. And probably more than one woman director a decade nominated for an Oscar.
Nowhere did I say every artist should be granted full subsidies in my comments and I sort of don’t like it being inferred. I believe in much larger subsidies than are in place right now for the arts (which is now equal to about 1 jet from the Department of Defense’s 663.8 Billion dollar budget), which will increase diversity in the film industry and create more jobs here thus taking artists out of poverty.
And I still believe the quality of art that one puts out is higher when one is not working 3 jobs to put food on the table because an arts organization or studio doesn’t have the funds to pay you a decent wage because they didn’t get that subsidy or a studio bigwig won’t hire you because of ageism.
“Instead of the U.S. attacking WTO and Canada regarding their subsidies for film – why aren’t we offering the same subsidies to our own artists?”
Because of the enormous foreign aid and military budgets- amongst other things. Not saying that that is necessarily bad but the U.S. can’t do everything it may want to.
Australia, also, offers massive subsidies for film makers eg. The Matrix.
If the aim of life is assistance of others, then the individual has no significance. What would be the purpose of assisting others purely for the sake of doing so? That would reduce humankind to a beehive, or more succinctly, to Communism. Pure, blind Collectivism is an empty task.
The reason evil is evil is because it prevents the self development of other people. Every individual matters.
You are exactly right, Korg.
I hear echoes of Howard Roark and Ellsworth Toohey. Except that everyone here wants artistic integrity and quality. We’re just not agreed on the best way to get there.
I know all about Ayn Rand. I’ve read almost every biography of her and all her works. She fascinates me – and not in a good way. She was a pulp-fiction-writing, greed-is-good, Gordon Gekko precursor who inspired the very people who brought the United States to her knees steeped in anti-regulatory, unchecked financial selfishness. Her ravenous appetite for greed infected a whole cult of her followers who have been bailed out by the very institution she abhorred, the government. If Toohey is her personification of evil (he is) – then I whole-heartedly accept the complement with pleasure.
Joivre, I wouldn’t ever compare actual people to Rand’s cardboard cut-out archetypes. I meant that the discussion we’re having reminds me of some of Rand’s themes.
It’s been a while since I’ve read her works – had to resort to Wikipedia to remember the names of some of her characters (I never knew that Gail Wynand financed Roark’s skyscraper and gosh, Dominique Francon Keating Wynand Roark had a weird way of making political statements!). But from what I remember, she wasn’t advocating greed and selfishness as good ends, but rather as forces which would bring good things about. I don’t think she was saying that you shouldn’t share. Just that you shouldn’t be forced to share. She certainly wouldn’t have approved of the government using tax payers’ money to bail out instiutions which landed in doo doo through bad business practices (lending money they didn’t have to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back).
Actually, I was thinking more of her views of artististic integrity and survival. Specifically, of the sculptor whose name I can’t remember, but who disgusts Roark by making cute statues of cherubs because his important stuff won’t sell. On the one hand, government subsidies would have kept him in enough mac’n'cheese so he could have kept working on important stuff. On the other hand, once you get into the territory of government subsidies, someone has to decide what will get subsidized and what won’t. And to whom do we entrust that judgement? I might be ok subsidizing Dominique’s naked statue (funny how some memories stick), but someone else might prefer the cherubim.
Tom,
I’m one of those blokes who reckons that self-sacrifice is the ultimate expression of love and humanity. Its the greatest expression of service to others and of the greatest significance. Its the main theme of the literature we look at around here.
I’m sure that view comes from my Christian faith. Philippians 2:3-8 being hugely important:
I know from your previous posts that you don’t have any time for Christianity. But it is why I have that view.
Whether Rand opposed fraud – makes no difference now. She opposed the regulations needed to guard against it. Written in 2002 – Dr. E. Hudgins, director of the thinktank devoted to Objectivism said – “While new laws might be needed to punish fraud, new regulations would only make matters worse. The recent scandals show that a free market and a free society must be based on a sound and ethical infrastructure. Adopting the morality of capitalism will help prevent both corporate and government scandals in the future.”
Fat lot of good that is now in 2010.
Also, most economists agree that there are three people who are in good part to blame for the greatest global crisis ever – and guess what? They’re all Randroids! Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman, and Larry Summers. Like one of the commentors says – it reveals that Ms. Rand had the gift of a poison pill that keeps on giving. And oh – the irony of it all. She thought the greatest financial catastrophe the world would ever see would come from government regulation of greed.
I could bemoan objectivism all night long and get nowhere. So I’ll stop.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/greenspan-bemoans-crisis-but-who-is-to-blame/?scp=4&sq=ayn%20rand&st=cse
And I don’t think it’s so hard to see what to fund or not – and neither do you. BTW there are 3 nude sculptures of little ol’ moi floating around Europe – all done by an artist on the dole in Paris about 6 years ago. Now he’s so expensive I can’t afford them anymore and he’s off the state subsidy.
Meanwhile back at the Oscars, Waltz and Mo’Nique win for supporting actor and actress proving – proving what? That evil doers win secondary awards while the good guys (Bridges and Bullock) win the main ones? And Hurt Locker trounces Avatar proving that Oscar is conservative and likes movies with un-computer enhanced actors.
BTW, I think it’s really cool that there are statues of you wandering around in Europe. You notice that I do not pick up the economic gauntlet.
Yesterday, as a part of the Globe’s Oscar preview, they did a bit on deserving performances that didn’t get nominated. The pick for this year was Stanley Tucci- his perfomrance with Streep in “Julie and Julia”, vs his villian role in “Lovely Bones” (which is what he was nominated for.
“The only thing harder than being a model spouse- loving, tolerant, stimulated and simulating (amused and amusing too)- is plausibly portraying one onscreen. It’s a lot harder than playing, say, a murderous pedophile. It’s not as flashy, though, so Tucci’s best supporting actor nomination this year is for the “lovely Bones.” Alas, in award recognition, if not in art or life, murder trumps marriage.” I read that, and thought of you all.
Here is the link to the full blurb: http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/oscars/articles/2010/03/07/oscar_oversights_past_and_present/
Yes, as wonderful as Streep was, I think Stanley Tucci’s was my favorite performance of that movie. Seems like Paul Child was such a fundamentally decent guy, and Tucci brought that across beautifully, with such warmth, grace and humor.
Did you see the look on his face when they showed his clip from The Lovely Bones before announcing the winner of Best Supporting Actor? He looked totally skeezed out at himself.
Ditto about Stanley Tucci’s Mr. Child. And yes, by all accounts that was a lovely marriage due in no small part to the fact that Mr. Child was one of the most supportive, loving and good natured men on the face of the Earth. They really were a great team – and an example of how good a marriage can be. I loved Tucci’s performance.
Whoa – and though I’ve never seen The Lovely Bones – just looking at that clip sickened me. I don’t think I want to see it now. And I’m usually up for seeing almost anything. You’re right Erin – Tucci was frightened by his own performance!
Watching Sidibe accept her tribute from Oprah made me weep. Oh how I love her. She was so amazing in Precious. Did anyone notice Streep couldn’t keep her eyes off her? Sidibe is the genuine article.
And thanks for not picking up the glove, Red. It’s a new day and I don’t feel like talking about it anymore.
Ah Korg, humility is not a word in my dictionary. It’s far too close to humiliation.
I remember reading something in Entertainment Weekly about how Peter Jackson decided to tone down the violence in the movie. I guess he left the rape out entirely and I think they said he cut away before the murder really happened, though I still haven’t seen it so I don’t really know. But in that article Tucci said he was really relieved they decided not to show much because he was extremely uncomfortable with the idea of acting out the rape and murder of a child…
I haven’t seen Precious yet either but have been really impressed with Gabourey in interviews and such. She seems like an incredibly mature, poised young woman. And obviously very talented.
Just listening to my 4 year old and his buddy argue over who gets to play the bad guy in their little version of “Police and Jail” or whatever. They both want to be in jail because its more fun to break out of jail than be the policeman. The compromise is that they are both in jail, but now they don’t know how to get out. I have no idea what the has to do with the Oscars, but it made me think of this thread and that perhaps villains are more fun for actors because its the “alter ego” phenomena. And the same with the media, because the bad guy is what give the film drama, so most likely its the more memorable character.
Just saw Julie and Julia and thought Tucci was fantastic.
{ 1 trackback }