So last week I started into my (very one-sided) discussion of this year’s Oscar field, and I spent most of that time looking at Tom Hooper’s adaptation of “Les Misérables” and little of that time talking about Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” and Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln.”
The reason for my brevity in regards to “Lincoln” should’ve been fairly obvious if you read last week, but if you didn’t let me reiterate: I really, really don’t want “Lincoln” to win. Or even for Spielberg to win Best Director. I’ve accepted that we give Daniel Day-Lewis tiny gold statues on a periodic basis as tribute in a sort of pan-theistic ritual we go through to placate him and spare us from his mighty wrath and I’m okay with it.
However, my slighting “Django Unchained” in terms of page space made less sense, even to me as I was writing it, because as people who read this column frequently might have noticed, I’ve kind of got a major film crush on “Inglourious Basterds,” and although I’m less vocal about it, “Pulp Fiction” is probably one of the best movies ever. I’m a Tarantino fan.
I saw “Django.” Twice. And I really enjoyed myself both times. So when I found myself thinking about the Best Picture nominees, I was shocked to discover that “Django” honestly wasn’t my pick for any of my three personal Oscar categories.
Quick tangent—I tend to think of the nominees in terms of “who should win,” “who I want to win” and “who probably will win.” All three categories are mostly unrelated and intended to weed out any personal biases I might have. The first two differ between objective filmmaking excellence and subjective, personal taste. And the third takes into account that the Oscars are the Oscars and rarely do what they should, or ever what I’d like them to.
So, it was from this perspective that I evaluated “Django Unchained.” Not surprisingly, I ruled it out of “who probably will win” pretty quickly, with all the safer bets running around this year (“Argo,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” frickin’ “Lincoln”). But, when I really considered it, it didn’t look all that strong on the other two scales either.
The strongest case being made for it on the “Who I want to win” front is a combination of the fact that I still think Tarantino is owed an Oscar for “Pulp Fiction” (and that’s pretty much how the Oscars work anyways right? Ignore somebody’s masterpiece and then give them the award for whatever they do later?) and the fact that it was easily the most fun I had watching any of the nominees.
However, do I think this means that it should win, or even that I want it to win? No. After a lot of thinking, a lot of soul searching and a lot of coffee, I’ve realized, officially, that this year I want “Beasts of the Southern Wild” to win Best Picture, and I think “Amour” should win it.
They’re both movies about growing, with “Beasts” being about having to grow up fast and learning to be independent, and “Amour” being about growing older and watching those you love, and yourself, deteriorate with time. It’s about growing to accept these things.
In a lot of ways they’re mirror images of each other. Both stories were told by Oscar nominated directors; however, Benh Zeitlin, who directed “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” was making his first major movie and set it in a weird, sprawling quasi-fantasy world that he shot with a hand-held camera, making it feel extremely raw and intimate.
Contrast this with “Amour,” which was made with the hands of legendary, critically-acclaimed-everywhere-but-America-because-he’s-foreign director Michael Haneke. He too manages to create an emotionally raw, intimate picture, but he did it with the smooth, trained hand of a man who seems born to make movies. His movies are usually soul wrenching and dark, but absolutely beautiful to behold.
Aside from the direction of both movies, each of which are original, stunning and flawlessly executed, they each feature a Best Actress nominee who is absolutely brilliant, which again displays the really creepy sort of parallels that run between these two films.
Emmanuelle Riva, nominated for her role in “Amour,” is the oldest Best Actress nominee in Oscar history. Quvenzhane Wallis, who is nine years old (NINE!), is the youngest. And each were respectively great. It’s pretty unbelievable, really. Riva has been doing this longer than most of our parents have been alive, and it shows. Wallis somehow managed to be subtle—as a nine year old. There are 30-year-old actors who can’t be subtle.
As hard as it might be for me to admit it, Tarantino should not win Best Picture, and I don’t want him to.
There are two very, very good movies, perfectly executed and perfectly deserving of the top honors of the American film industry. “Amour” probably deserves it more, as it’s technically the better movie, made by an unbelievably talented, veteran crew. But “Beasts” is so freaking adorable as a film and Wallis was crazy good (NINE YEARS OLD!). It just hit a spot in my heart. So I want it to win, but really, “Amour” should.
And either of them would be miles better than frickin’ “Lincoln.”
Still think “Lincoln” is worthy of a clean sweep? Let Austin know at wellens@wisc.edu
