Late Oscars Response II

I've been reliably informed by Empire (my film magazine of choice since I was 15) that there are 27 sequels out this year, so it seemed only fitting that I do a sequel to my Oscars post from a few days ago. I originally wrote this article for Epigram, but because Film & TV only has a tiny section there wasn't enough room to print it. I'm still quite proud of it though, and I did practice what I'm preaching and sat through the whole Oscars ceremony when it was broadcast live. So here are my thoughts on televised award show (written pre-Oscars): 

The red carpets are being rolled up; the couture frocks have been sent back to the designers and the unused acceptance speeches are lying forlornly in the recycling. Awards season is over for another year. Millions of dollars and months of planning go into producing the various award shows that sprawl across January and February, but is there really any point in watching them? Putting aside the inherent arguments about the ridiculous amount of money spent on rewarding people in the film industry who generally earn millions anyway, why spend 3 hours being drip fed information by a live telecast, when you can read an article the next morning telling you all of the winners in less than 60 seconds?

At their worst, live telecasts can be a dreary trudge through the year’s films, especially if the same films (which you didn’t like) win all the awards and every winner gives the same identikit acceptance speech, thanking The Academy, their parents and a variety of people you’ve never heard of, in a never-ending list that makes you wish they hadn’t won in the first place.

Admittedly, award show producers do try to help alleviate possible tedium by adding in diversionary segments of fun and glamour. The Hugh Jackman song-and-dance number at the 2009 Oscars was certainly spectacular, but it set a precedent that other award shows have since tried and failed to copy. The most cringeworthy moment of this year’s BAFTAs came before any awards had even been handed out, as the show opened with a group of streetdancers, apparently acting out the top films of the year: a misguided choice by someone who clearly thought that anything urban was an automatic passport to Coolsville (in this case it certainly wasn’t).

Britain can’t really compete with America for razzle-dazzle, but we don’t need to. The BAFTAs are at their best when they’re witty, refined and slightly bumbling, like a mid-nineties Hugh Grant, which is why BAFTA live telecasts are so good. If they weren’t aired live, we’d probably never have gotten to see Helena Bonham Carter tell the great and good of Western filmmaking that her underskirt had gotten hitched up; or watch Jonathan Ross rush, terrified, onto the stage to stop practically perfect Rosamund Pike from announcing the winner of Best Original Screenplay before the nominees had been announced.

Even when all goes to plan, there’s still something exciting about watching the results being announced live. You get all the build-up and drama of the competition, the tension, the triumph, and the chance to see who’s practised their dignified loser face. They’re also an opportunity to put the spotlight on great film-making, rather than commercial success, so you may hear about an amazing film that passed you by when it was released, because it didn’t have the advertising budget of the big blockbusters. Plus, the Oscars are broadcast live in 200 countries worldwide, making them one of the few non-sporting events that can claim to be a global event. And, if you watch with friends, award ceremonies are a great chance to have a proper debate about films, bizarre outfit choices and how creepy it is that The King’s Speech director Tom Hooper looks almost exactly like a young James Cameron. In the end - whether it’s a box-office busting crowd-pleaser or an arty indie flick - films are made to be watched by audience, so it makes sense for anything celebrating the achievements of cinema to be readily available to that same audience. If such events can be both informative and entertaining, all the better.

Next year I am definitely going to force more friends to stay up for it, as I think I only managed to make it through the whole telecast because of a mixture of Twitter and talking to one of my flatmates and his friend from home about what was going on via Facebook. Who knows I may even throw a party... (I probably won't).

Late Oscars Response

For the first time ever, I sat up and watched the Oscars being broadcast live. It was quite the experience. I know there's been a lot of criticism of Anne Hathaway and James Franco as hosts, but I thought they were quite sweet. Clearly they were no Billy Crystal, but at least they weren't Ricky Gervais.

Overall, I was pretty pleased with who won, although I really thought Hailee Steinfield should have won Best Supporting Actress. I still don't understand why she wasn't nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role (though she wouldn't have beaten Natalie Portman, who was just genius in Black Swan, and fully deserved to win), but her performance in True Grit was so good, and she really held her own onscreen with Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, both of whom are incredibly charismatic actors. Plus, I've not seen The Fighter, so I'm not really in a position to comment on whether Melissa Leo deserved it or not.

I was pleased Aaron Sorkin won Best Adapted Screenplay for The Social Network, because even though I didn't really like the film, his script was so well-written and he's such a good writer that he deserves Academy recognition (I love Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip so much, it makes me sad that it was cancelled after one season).

It was not particularly surprising that The King's Speech won so many of the big awards, and I'm really glad it did, not just because it was a fantastic film, but because it was funded by the UK Film Council. I wrote this article on the closure of the UKFC for The Epigram a couple of weeks ago:

If one film has dominated the start of 2011, it’s The King’s Speech. The film tells the true story of how an unorthodox speech therapist (Geoffrey Rush) helped King George VI (Colin Firth) to overcome his debilitating stammer. This unassuming historical drama has been loved by audiences and critics alike, and is nominated for almost every major accolade this awards season. Firth has already received a Golden Globe for his stellar performance as the stammering monarch and he is hotly tipped to win the Best Actor Oscar, one of the twelve Academy Award nominations the film received in January – the most Oscar nominations of any film this year.

Amongst those singing the film’s praises is Tanya Seghatchian, Head of the UK Film Council’s Film Fund: "This is fantastic result for The King's Speech and points to a very successful awards season for this brilliant British film.  We are proud to have played a part in helping it to get made and congratulate everyone connected with the film.” However, behind these words of admiration lies a much sadder story.  The UK Film Council (UKFC) was abolished last year as part of the current government’s sweep of Arts cuts. Set up in 2000 to develop and promote the film industry in the UK, the Film Council funded for hundreds of successful British films, including In The Loop, Fish Tank, The Last King of Scotland and This Is England. Even more recently, the UKFC provided almost a quarter of the budget for Mike Leigh’s Another Year, whose script is nominated alongside The King’s Speech for the Best Original Screenplay Oscar. In the belt-tightening years of the mid to late 2000s, it is likely that many of these films would not have been made without UKFC funding. 

Unsurprisingly, the decision to shut down the Film Council was widely criticised, as its closure has the potential to affect all strata of the film industry. The UKFC funded regional film schemes, such as Screen Yorkshire, which itself funded Paddy Considine’s directorial debut Tyrannosaur. Tyrannosaur went on to win two major prizes at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. Nationally, the British Film Institute was funded by the UKFC, as well as programmes to make cinemas across the country more accessible for those with sight and hearing impairments. On a general level, the UKFC had a strong tradition of funding films that showcased the best that Britain has to offer, be that beautifully shot character pieces or groundbreaking works by new writers and directors. It seems foolhardy and short-sighted to make cuts to one of the major industries in which Britain seems to truly operate on a global stage, particularly as the industry employs over 36,000 people.

It is not just the success of The King’s Speech that has drawn attention to the importance of the Film Council: two films funded by the UKFC, Sex & Drugs & Rock & Roll and Son of Babylon, have been chosen to screen at the prestigious Berlin film festival. As UKFC-funded films continue to do so well, both critically and financially, it helps to further underline the ludicrousness of the government’s decision. However, it’s not all doom and gloom for the British film industry. Fox Searchlight, which funded films such as Black Swan and Never Let Me Go, has formed a partnership with UK-based media investor Ingenious to finance new British films. Whilst this arrangement is far from perfect, as the deal only amounts to the distribution of three films a year, it does at least go some way to filling the void left by the UK Film Council.

 - Holly Close (Originally printed in The Epigram, No. 235, Feb 21st 2011)


As a consequence of how well The King's Speech did, more funding is being put back into the UK film industry (at least this article from The Guardian), though I don't understand why they had to abolish the UKFC in the first place


NB: I know The Oscars are kind of old news now, and everyone's moved onto Charlie Sheen going nuts and John Galliano being an anti-Semite, but I've been writing an essay on Edgar Allan Poe for the last week, so time has only just restarted for me.