The Reel Critic Oscars

Author: Josh Wessler

The Academy Awards might feel a bit repetitive this year. Clint Eastwood directed two of the nominated films. Peter Morgan wrote both "The Last King of Scotland" and "The Queen," and was nominated for the latter. Alex Jennings has roles in "The Queen" and "Babel," both of which are up for major awards. But more important than the apparent consolidation of Hollywood cast and crew (maybe we've started outsourcing) is the continued pandering to the films that "should" be the best. The best example of this (Disclaimer: possibly offensive opinion ahead) is the embarrassing choice of "Crash" for best picture last year. Ultimately, what might be more shocking than crediting a bad movie that everyone wants to win ("Crash") is nominating a good movie that no one expected. (Prime example: Spike Lee, tragically, has never won an Oscar, and was again snubbed for this year's "Inside Man").

On top of this year's Crash Cart (I couldn't resist) is Alejandro Gonz·lez IÒ·rritu's "Babel." Like his earlier film "Amores Perros," IÒ·rritu drags us along several story lines, which inevitably intersect and weave together. The final product, however, is patchy. From the beginning, IÒ·rritu warns us that expectations are not always true. At first, this type of counterpoint is interesting, until we realize it is to be used throughout the whole film. His toolkit for cracking clichÈs ends up being just as predictable.

As the movie plods on, these ≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠hooks only loosely hold together a fragmented series of scenes, rotating between the three storylines. A film student might identify this detached crosscutting as a fundamental cinematic technique, but IÒarritu has long since left those experiments on the film school floor. He is out to press the message into us until it hurts and we cry. To a limited degree, he is successful. He has a natural eye for framing and lighting, and always includes a moving soundtrack. In the best scene, set in Japan, we take part in a drunken escapade around the city, following a rebellious deaf-mute girl named Chieko (≠≠≠Rinko Kikuchi). A mesmerizing wall of sound drops out and fills our ears with her deafness. This scene, however, highlights the real pleasure that IÒarritu gets out of making movies. His talent lies in photography and the quick, pulsing hits of rough-cut, handheld filming - but it is painful to watch him tell a story.

For all its weaknesses, "Babel" is at least not frivolous; that distinction goes to "The Queen," which most people have already watched with a certain discomfort. This awkwardness is the result of seeing a bland movie that received high marks from just about everyone (kind of like getting an A+ on that fifteen-pager you wrote in one day). "The Queen" begins as a sardonic peek into the stilted life of Queen Elizabeth II, nominal head of Britain, but soon becomes ensnared in the fallout of Princess Diana's death in 1997.

The movie gingerly attempts a political skewering of newly-elected Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen), reducing his defense of the Queen to an oedipal complex. It tries to portray him as a two-faced radical who abandoned his plans for governmental reformation, but the film gives up before it swings too far in favor of a substantial point. Sure, one could argue, the value of a royal family is a fair question, but "The Queen" hardly breaks new ground in the debate. Cinematically, the story is much the same, though Steven Frears should get merit for trying to rescue the script. Like strong black tea, which the royal family drinks dutifully each afternoon, the film's mood steeps and settles into something dark, flavorful and, ultimately, cold and remote. Suspended between pity and contempt (and lacking enough background to understand both sides), we end up feeling sort of neutral towards the whole affair. As Prince Charles, Diana's former husband and tacit defender, Alex Jennings best captures the simmering turmoil inside the "establishment," but it's not enough to explain why we're watching this movie. It's clear that "The Queen" has appeal in the United States because there are so many who envy the intrigue of having a superfluous royal class. Maybe this film will lead people to realize that such a class is just a waste of time and money and we won't have to deal with "The Queen II."

Looking at the pitiful nominees for best picture (with two exceptions), one cannot fail to notice the glaring omissions. I say we get rid of the category of best foreign language film, since that list disqualifies them from winning best picture, though, paradoxically, not from lesser categories. With today's cultural fluidity, it seems petty not to acknowledge the obvious presence of foreign films in our culture. Maybe people are scared that if we encourage foreign films too much, American cinema will fade into obscurity - maybe it already has.

In the days before the winners are announced, it is nice to imagine that who we want to win will win. But it's hard to shake the sinking feeling that Hollywood will once again wrap itself in its pork-barrel politics and hibernate until next Oscar season.