On the surface, these plots — of "Million Dollar Baby," "Crash," "The Departed," "No Country for Old Men," "Slumdog Millionaire" and "The Hurt Locker" — have one thing in common: Oscars for best picture (in chronological order since 2005). But scratch deeper and there's more going on: They're actually all thorough character studies of the disenfranchised, from working class to straight-up poverty class.
Clearly there are outside influences on each win, but just how did we go from bawdy musicals ("Chicago," 2003 winner) and computer-generated fantasy fests ("Lord of the Rings: Return of the King," 2004 winner) to modern, naturalistic, character-driven storytelling for six years straight? On the one hand, it might say something about academy voters. Longtime working-class storyteller Mike Leigh, out this season with "Another Year," suggests it means that "Oscar voters are growing up; these are mature choices in a way."
But, in large part, it may be more of a commentary on the way movies are made, and honored, in the 21st century.
Simon Beaufoy won "Slumdog's" adapted screenplay Oscar in 2009 (he's back this year with director Danny Boyle for "127 Hours") and says the greater the struggle, the more cathartic audiences find the story.
"In 90 minutes of cinema, you have to take your audience on a huge journey," he says. "Audiences find a great sense of uplift when they see someone for whom the odds are really stacked against them go all the way on that journey. If you're middle class and you've got enough money for a mortgage, house, and you have kids and a bottle of wine on a Friday night — it's quite difficult to see the drama in that."
No comments:
Post a Comment