|
By Peter T. Chattaway
THINGS are a little different at the Academy Awards this year.
Most significantly, the list of Best Picture nominees has been expanded from its usual five to 10, and this means a number of films that might have been too popular or obscure to be considered for this award in the past are now in the running for the industry’s top prize.
Thus, science-fiction films like District 9 and popular ‘grassroots’ films like The Blind Side, which is based on the true story of an evangelical family that took a homeless boy under its wing and helped him to become a professional athlete, are now competing with serious independent films like The Hurt Locker and massive box-office hits like Avatar.
But how many of these ‘extra’ films have a real shot at winning, though?
You have to go back 20 years to find the last time a film won Best Picture without being at least nominated for Best Director; that would seem to rule out both District 9 and The Blind Side, as well as An Education, A Serious Man and Up.
And you have to go back 29 years to find the last time a film won Best Picture without being at least nominated for Best Editing; that would seem to rule out Up in the Air.
Finally, you have to go back a whopping 77 years to find the last time a film won Best Picture without having a single nomination for its screenplay or its actors; that would seem to rule out Avatar, which is already at a disadvantage because it is both a science-fiction movie and the all-time box-office champ – a formula that, in years gone by, spelled defeat for films like Star Wars (which lost to Annie Hall) and E.T. (which lost to Gandhi).
That leaves three contenders for the top prize: The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds and Precious. And of those, The Hurt Locker – a suspenseful and at times riveting depiction of an American bomb-disposal unit in Iraq – seems to have all the momentum right now.
The one thing it doesn’t have is box-office success; if it wins, it will be the lowest-grossing Best Picture certainly of my lifetime, and possibly everyone else’s as well. The Academy generally likes its winners to be at least somewhat popular, so who knows – the award may go to James Cameron’s movie or even Quentin Tarantino’s in the end. We shall see.
In the meantime, you can download a podcast in which I discuss the Oscar-nominated films with three other people as part of The Kindlings Muse, a monthly panel discussion that I have had the good fortune to be involved with several times over the past year.
Continue article >>
|
Hosted by Surrey-based pastor Bill Hogg, this month’s panel also includes Allyson Jule and Murray Stiller. You can download the podcast at TheKindlings.ca.
* * *
Independent Christian films don’t often get released north of the border, so it’s worth noting that To Save a Life – a teen drama produced by New Song Community Church in Oceanside, California – came to Vancouver-area theatres late last month and might still be kicking around as you read this.
 | | To Save a Life is polished, but tackles a few too many social issues. |
Because it was made in part by church-based volunteers, the film has been compared to Facing the Giants and other films produced by the Kendrick brothers in Albany, Georgia. But it does have a bit of industry-based professionalism on its side; director Brian Baugh has been a cinematographer on films like An American Carol. At least on a technical level, it is more polished than other films of its ilk.
Indeed, it may be too polished. The soundtrack, which is filled with teen-pop tracks, never lets up; and some scenes, such as an opening flashback sequence, are over-edited.
In addition, the script, by youth pastor Jim Britts, probably bites off more than it can chew. While the film is primarily about teen suicide and social ostracization, it keeps dropping new social issues into the mix right up until the final reels. What with drugs, divorce, teen pregnancy and the evil ways of preachers’ kids, there’s something here for everybody.
But as movies made for high schoolers go, it has its merits. And as a film made by and for the evangelical church, it’s an interesting document in its own right.
Like the movies made by the Kendrick brothers, it places the main character’s conversion in the middle of the story, rather than at the end. This allows us to see the difference that Christ makes in his life, and it also allows the film to grapple with the disillusionment that comes when people get a glimpse of the all-too-human inner workings of the church.
In these and other ways, To Save a Life suggests we have truly left the era of Billy Graham movies and their fairy-tale story structures behind. And while those films had their place, I couldn’t be happier.
– filmchatblog.blogspot.com
March 2010
|
