|
|
|
|
|
Oscar 2005: Hollywood on the Cheap
(February, 20 2006) What’s going
on in the land of bombastic spectacles where small is a four letter word and
excess an essential survival tool? Has Hollywood decided to take a charitable
bow in honoring the spare and the small, or has it just opened its mind? The
films nominated for the 2005 Academy Awards
is a refreshing crop indeed, and not just for their undeniable power to
provoke. For the first time in three years, the field’s not only void of a
100 million dollar, cineplex warrior, but the collective budget of all five
films nominated for Best Picture, barely exceeds that barrier (109 million to
be exact). Sure, there have been
small films nominated for the catbird seat in the past. “Lost in
Translation,” Sophia Coppola’s poignant yarn about getting lost in a foreign
world to find yourself, had a budget of four million back in 2003 (and
grossed nearly 120 million), but perhaps the biggest Oscar bang for the buck
was Todd Field’s “In the Bedroom.” The indie adaptation of Andre Dubus’s
contemplation about loss and revenge cost a mere 1.7 million in 2001. And of
course there’s the indelible crime-classic “Pulp Fiction,” which only needed
eight million to assemble all that impressive star power in 1994. With
inflation factors considered, that’s probably the equivalent of the fourteen
million Ang Lee required to make this year’s odds-on-favorite, “Brokeback
Mountain.” “Crash,” with its talented ensemble, and period pieces (which
because of logistics and authenticity, always tend to cost more), “Capote,”
and George Clooney’s “Good Night and Good Luck,” all were crafted on budgets
of around seven million dollars. The year’s big-ticket item is Steven
Spielberg’s revenge drama, “Munich,” which weighs in at 74 million dollars. And while the money
factor is eye popping, it’s more interesting to note what’s absent. There are
no big sweeping extravaganzas like “Chicago,” “Titanic” or “The Lord of the
Rings”—though I half expected “King Kong” to muscle its way in. And nowhere
to be seen are the sentimental crowd pleasers (“Forrest Gump,” “Seabiscuit”
and “The English Patient”) or the gritty crime-dramas (“Goodfellas,” “The
Godfather” or “Pulp Fiction”) that are normally prevalent in the pack. So where does that
exactly leave Oscar? With a tragic gay cowboy love story, an egotistical
artist looking to bolster his legacy, the terrifying atmosphere of
McCarthyism, a blood feud and racism in LA? Not exactly cheery stuff, but if
you sift through the chafe, there is more hope and redemption than despair.
Is not the bridled romance between Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis Del
Mar (Heath Ledger) in “Brokeback,” not unlike the heated passion between Rose
(Kate Winslet) and Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) that captivated audiences’ hearts
in “Titanic?” Aren’t “Crash” and “Good Night, and Good Luck” at their very
core, not about civility and fighting inequity? Then there’s “Capote,” the
portrait of an artist as an egotistical fop, that’s also an examination of a journalist
and the moral and ethical struggle to give his subject its fair due while
telling the horrible truth. And finally “Munich,” where reprisal blood is
spilled in every frame and the assassins, family men with home lives and
dreams, is a provocative reflection on the never ending, and ever widening,
circle of violence. There’s no escapism this
year, and perhaps that’s due to living in a post 9/11 world where cynicism
and paranoia have made it all the more impetrative to look inward. 2005 may
have been a cheap year as far as dollars are concerned, but in terms of
examining the human condition and the issues that pervade it culturally,
politically and economically, it’s an exceptionally rich year. - TBM |
|
|
|
|
|