Recently in Film Category

RC has hijacked control of our Netflix queue. Until he did, I was probably their favorite customer, since it took me about six months to watch a movie and another six months to return it. (You might find this surprising, given that I work in film, but I go to the movies a lot, and I also am a big fan of the tivo.)

Since the regime change, however, films are rolling in and out of here like popcorn films in the summer. Blink, and it's gone, whether it has been watched or not. I've even gotten into the game, trading an unwatched "Lost Boys of Sudan" for a fix of "Battlestar Galactica." Oh, Edward James Olmos! How I miss your smoky voice and yearn for season three to be out! (You don't have to tell me what a loser I am; I know.)

Anyway, yesterday's mail brought us the multi-nominated "Babel", directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarittu. I had no desire to see it. But I hadn't much wanted to see "Crash" last year, and though I thought it didn't deserve any of the hype it received, I was mildly entertained by it. And I'll give just about any non-horror film a try. So Babel it was.

It was the most tedious film I have seen in years. And that includes "Syriana." Nothing is more condescending then an "eat your spinach" film that is completely not entertaining. Don't get me wrong; the actors all did a lovely job, and the film looks great. The main problem is Inarritu clearly doesn't like any one of his characters; not the smug Americans, hard-living hard-partying Mexicans, or poor Arabs. They are all treated with a sense of distance that is akin to scorn. The only interesting thread was the one regarding deaf-mute Japanese girl. When Inarittu actually tries to connect to one of his characters, it pays off. We see her beauty and feel her pain, but don't feel sorry for her. It would have been great to see a whole movie just about her. But the contrived bit about how the gun that shot the american tourist got to where it did? The second the poor goat farmer took out the picture of himself with the hunter? Well, I had to turn it off. I had better things to do.

"House" was on, and it was really good!

Here is a quote I took from an article about Dreamgirls in the New York Times yesterday: "“What is a ‘best picture?’ ” asked Rob Moore, Paramount’s president for worldwide marketing, distribution and operations. Mr. Moore noted that “Dreamgirls” found itself competing with nominees of a more typical bent toward serious drama, including “Babel,” another Paramount film; “Letters From Iwo Jima,” released by Warner Brothers Pictures, and “The Queen.”

“The category isn’t ‘most entertaining movie,’ ” Mr. Moore noted."

Huh?

If a film (a piece of entertainment) wins "Best Picture" shouldn't it be the most entertaining? What makes a picture "best" if not its ability to entertain?

The Websters Dictionary definition of "entertain" is: provide with amusement or enjoyment. Mr Moore seems to be implying that Dreamgirls was the most entertaining film of the year. Yet if Dreamgirls was, in fact, the most entertaining film of the year, shouldn't it by right, be the best picture? I've seen some great films this year, and not all of them are nominated. Children of Men wasn't exactly funny, but it was fascinating, and I was glued to my seat. The Queen was a joy; I laughed, I cried, I wanted to speak in an English accent for the rest of the evening. The Times doesn't mention "Little Miss Sunshine" but that was nominated for best picture, and happens to not only be endearing, but uproariously funny. All were entertaining.

Let's take a look at films that have won in the past:
2006- Ok, I disliked Crash. I think Brokeback was WAY more entertaining. But maybe some people, who happened to be in the academy, thought it was.

2003- LOTR 3, who can argue with any LOTR films? They are all magnificent and supremely entertaining.

2000- Gladiator. Now that's a great, entertaining film.

I think, without belaboring my point, you get it. Of course there are many many many entertaining films in a year. The Academy picks their five, and then their one, and one hopes that ones film is part of that group. But to say that "best picture" isn't about being the best entertainment is a pretty cynical statement that belies the whole notion of why the awards are given out. Which is to honor the achievement of making a great film.

Maybe "Dreamgirls" simply wasn't the most entertaining film of the year?