Here’s a story that broke yesterday but has continued to pick up steam through the movie blogs today: The Weinstein Co. is planning to release box office champ Inglourious Basterds on DVD by the end of the year in order to use the discs for a cheap but aggressive Oscar campaign. This isn’t surprising news considering Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar addiction, but it has suddenly made me aware that Basterds is both deserving of and sure to receive a nod for Best Picture, which would be Quentin Tarantino’s first such nominee since Pulp Fiction 15 years ago.
Seriously, if we can be talking about District 9, Star Trek and other genre movies for the top category now that it will include ten contenders, how couldn’t Basterds be seen as a likely nominee? People have celebrated Christoph Waltz’s performance since Cannes, and he’s sure to garner a Best Supporting Actor nod, but few have noted how the film itself is a lock, too. Certainly if Weinstein can get The Reader a surprise Best Picture nomination with only five available slots, he can get this film onto a ballot double the size.
Don’t forget the Holocaust rule; how could the Academy ignore a movie that features vengeful Jews assassinating Hitler and 300 other Nazis all at once in a blaze of glory? Never mind that they didn’t get some of the worst offenders involved in the genocide.
Could Basterds garner more than the two obvious nominations? I doubt Tarantino will receive recognition for either directing or screenwriting, but who knows? Any other performances worthy? Any tech fields? Variety has an interesting article today on the costume design by Anna B. Sheppard. She’s been twice nominated for, interestingly enough, Holocaust films (Schindler’s List and The Pianist), but this time she was presented with more of a challenge. I have a feeling this third Holocaust-related project could be the one to get her the Oscar.
Check out what the other film blogs are saying about Basterds‘ Oscar chances after the jump:
…Read more
There are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition.
But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance:
Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale.
As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest.
…Read more
Kate Winslet’s performance as a concentration camp guard in The Reader has been the subject of much debate over the past week, though little of the discussion has actually concerned her craft. The argument lies in whether or not this specific performance should be considered for the lead or supporting actress category. Furthermore, if Winslet ends up in the latter, will it be due to “category fraud?” That is not a legal term and this is not a legal issue, but it is an important topic for this year’s Oscars. The significance of the matter likely extends even to Winslet’s ability to sleep at night, as she may fear the high possibility of her becoming “the biggest loser among actresses in the history of the Academy Awards.”
Category fraud may be defined as an attempt to deceive Academy voters into believing a lead performance is supporting, or vice versa. Examples of category fraud seen in Oscar’s past may include recent supporting nominations given to Ethan Hawke, Jennifer Connelly and Cate Blanchett (for Training Day, A Beautiful Mind and Notes on a Scandal, respectively). Guy Lodge at In Contention and Dave Karger at Entertainment Weekly have both brought up the accusation regarding The Reader, not only for Winslet’s part but also for the Weinstein Co.’s general campaign for the film, which is pushing for supporting nominations all around for Winslet, David Kross, Ralph Fiennes and Lena Olin.
The problem for Lodge and Karger’s complaint is that category fraud can’t be applied to the supporting categories, because despite the Academy’s irritating penchant for category-defining rules for eligibility in other areas, there is really no precise distinction made regarding the separation of lead and supporting categories. …Read more
