The nominees:
American Sniper
Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
What won: Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
What should have won: Boyhood
My favorite: Whiplash
Why my pick should have won
I’m not going to say the academy got this one wrong, but what separates Birdman and Boyhood for me is the scope of the projects and how each one tackles similar concepts.
I truly believe Boyhood was the more impressive of the two films. What makes Boyhood so unique is that it wasn’t just a bold undertaking for 2014; it was the most ambitious project from 2001 to 2014. The scope of the production was so immense it’s a wonder it ever even got finished. Films that are in production for over a decade either don’t get completed or aren’t any good. When they do reach a theater there is usually evidence of production problems that show up in the film (disgruntled actors, budgeting concerns, location availability, the forces of nature, etc.). Need proof? Check it out:
-Cleopatra (1963) with Liz Taylor as the titular character (long, over budget, and not a
great movie)
-Tim Burton's Superman Lives (circa 1996), which would have starred Nic Cage as
Superman (never materialized)
-The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) starring a particularly WTF?-ish Marlon Brando (this
movie was horrid and there were scheduling conflicts with the principal actors)
-Terry Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote – a film so doomed that its
misfortune became a 2002 stand-alone documentary/cautionary tale (That said, it
is currently listed as being in pre-production on IMDb.com.).
The point is that Boyhood beat the odds and delivered a compelling, coherent, and contemplative masterpiece.
Boyhood was every bit as compelling a story as Birdman. But for me, what really separates Birdman and Boyhood in terms of a statement is the fact that, while they both approach the idea of family dynamics and getting older, Boyhood has a more universal quality. In fact, it would seem to me that the general viewing audience would have related more to raising children and growing up than a story about a has-been action-movie star attempting a comeback on Broadway. I’m all for escapism in entertainment, but there is also a lot to be said for connecting with characters.
Boyhood also had a time capsule quality to it. Perhaps the most enduring quality of this film will be the American Left’s sentiment during the first decade of the new millennium rather than the cars we drove, the clothes we wore, or the music we played. I applaud Linklater for making a point of capturing the political climate and fads of the decade as they arrived and faded. The way the movie was shot allowed for a much more organic political statement than much of what the public is force-fed from liberal Hollywood. I guess what I’m saying is as a history student I can appreciate the historicity without stumbling over the politics.
I will concede that the acting in Birdman was the better of the two films, but let’s consider a couple of things. First, there was good (or great) acting in Boyhood, as evidenced by Ethan Hawke’s nomination and Patricia Arquette’s win for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress, respectively. Admittedly, Ellar Coltrane left something to be desired as the lead in Boyhood, but come on – that’s what happens when you take a chance on a six year-old kid. Richard Linklater and Beth Sepko rolled the dice on Coltrane, and, while he doesn’t appear to be the second coming of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, he could have been much, much worse. Remember when George Lucas gave us Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker?
Why I loved Whiplash
Whiplash was awesome. First of all, JK Simmons is perfect in this movie. Every decision he made for creating his character (Fletcher) worked – you can’t second guess or take anything away from a single frame of film on which he’s featured. Simmons, in a supporting role, carries the movie, which says a ton because it’s not like Miles Teller (Andrew) phoned it in. Simmons was genuinely scary; a drill sergeant’s expectations for his players with an ear that would make an owl jealous, yet a cordial, inviting façade for his audience – a sort of act within the film. By trying to be completely, totally in control of every note of the music, Fletcher lost control of the people behind the instruments. You never see Fletcher pull back (being forced to leave the school is not pulling back), so you can’t honestly know how far that character would go. You only get to see what it does to the other musicians. Brilliantly, the audience is left guessing what he will do next, right down to the last scene.
Second, the music was great. No epic John Williams or Klaus Badelt score, but also no bubble gum pop garbage or the hip-hop so many Gen-Xers and millennials have embraced (the characters in the film are musicians who actually play instruments!) – just catchy jazz tunes. Such music may not be for everyone all the time, but that wasn’t really ever the point. The music in this film was an omnipresent character used as a catalyst to initiate the conflict (and eventually the resolution) between Andrew and Fletcher.
Finally, I like how this story showed what greatness can often look like. Genius and brilliance of ten manifest in people who are ostracized, either by others or by themselves. Teller’s character sacrifices his time, his body, his mind, and relationships (or at least potential relationships) in order to tap into and fulfill his potential. Really, the only solid relationship he has – even within his own family – is with his father. I mean, the scene at the dinner table was incredibly uncomfortable. Luckily for us, the audience, we had the luxury of immediately cutting to the next scene instead of enduring awkward goodbyes. What hit home for me especially was the fact that he threw away any chance he had with Nicole (Melissa Benoist) so that he could free himself of any “distraction” that might hold him back. The breakup scene in the diner is so cringe-worthy it makes the aforementioned dinner scene seems pleasant by comparison. You want to jump into the film and interrupt him. Or slap him in the ear and give him the “what-the-hell-bro?” look.
Okay, so enough technical dissection – this was a fun movie to watch and it went by too quickly. I also like the open-ended nature of the story. Did Andrew go on to be one of the all-time greats? Did he appreciate the push from Fletcher? Did the two go on to reestablish a relationship? This movie is hardly a feel-good account from start to finish, but we are left with a lot of hope as the credits role. I doubt this film will come to feel tired with subsequent viewings.
American Sniper
Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
What won: Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
What should have won: Boyhood
My favorite: Whiplash
Why my pick should have won
I’m not going to say the academy got this one wrong, but what separates Birdman and Boyhood for me is the scope of the projects and how each one tackles similar concepts.
I truly believe Boyhood was the more impressive of the two films. What makes Boyhood so unique is that it wasn’t just a bold undertaking for 2014; it was the most ambitious project from 2001 to 2014. The scope of the production was so immense it’s a wonder it ever even got finished. Films that are in production for over a decade either don’t get completed or aren’t any good. When they do reach a theater there is usually evidence of production problems that show up in the film (disgruntled actors, budgeting concerns, location availability, the forces of nature, etc.). Need proof? Check it out:
-Cleopatra (1963) with Liz Taylor as the titular character (long, over budget, and not a
great movie)
-Tim Burton's Superman Lives (circa 1996), which would have starred Nic Cage as
Superman (never materialized)
-The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996) starring a particularly WTF?-ish Marlon Brando (this
movie was horrid and there were scheduling conflicts with the principal actors)
-Terry Gilliam’s The Man Who Killed Don Quixote – a film so doomed that its
misfortune became a 2002 stand-alone documentary/cautionary tale (That said, it
is currently listed as being in pre-production on IMDb.com.).
The point is that Boyhood beat the odds and delivered a compelling, coherent, and contemplative masterpiece.
Boyhood was every bit as compelling a story as Birdman. But for me, what really separates Birdman and Boyhood in terms of a statement is the fact that, while they both approach the idea of family dynamics and getting older, Boyhood has a more universal quality. In fact, it would seem to me that the general viewing audience would have related more to raising children and growing up than a story about a has-been action-movie star attempting a comeback on Broadway. I’m all for escapism in entertainment, but there is also a lot to be said for connecting with characters.
Boyhood also had a time capsule quality to it. Perhaps the most enduring quality of this film will be the American Left’s sentiment during the first decade of the new millennium rather than the cars we drove, the clothes we wore, or the music we played. I applaud Linklater for making a point of capturing the political climate and fads of the decade as they arrived and faded. The way the movie was shot allowed for a much more organic political statement than much of what the public is force-fed from liberal Hollywood. I guess what I’m saying is as a history student I can appreciate the historicity without stumbling over the politics.
I will concede that the acting in Birdman was the better of the two films, but let’s consider a couple of things. First, there was good (or great) acting in Boyhood, as evidenced by Ethan Hawke’s nomination and Patricia Arquette’s win for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress, respectively. Admittedly, Ellar Coltrane left something to be desired as the lead in Boyhood, but come on – that’s what happens when you take a chance on a six year-old kid. Richard Linklater and Beth Sepko rolled the dice on Coltrane, and, while he doesn’t appear to be the second coming of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, he could have been much, much worse. Remember when George Lucas gave us Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker?
Why I loved Whiplash
Whiplash was awesome. First of all, JK Simmons is perfect in this movie. Every decision he made for creating his character (Fletcher) worked – you can’t second guess or take anything away from a single frame of film on which he’s featured. Simmons, in a supporting role, carries the movie, which says a ton because it’s not like Miles Teller (Andrew) phoned it in. Simmons was genuinely scary; a drill sergeant’s expectations for his players with an ear that would make an owl jealous, yet a cordial, inviting façade for his audience – a sort of act within the film. By trying to be completely, totally in control of every note of the music, Fletcher lost control of the people behind the instruments. You never see Fletcher pull back (being forced to leave the school is not pulling back), so you can’t honestly know how far that character would go. You only get to see what it does to the other musicians. Brilliantly, the audience is left guessing what he will do next, right down to the last scene.
Second, the music was great. No epic John Williams or Klaus Badelt score, but also no bubble gum pop garbage or the hip-hop so many Gen-Xers and millennials have embraced (the characters in the film are musicians who actually play instruments!) – just catchy jazz tunes. Such music may not be for everyone all the time, but that wasn’t really ever the point. The music in this film was an omnipresent character used as a catalyst to initiate the conflict (and eventually the resolution) between Andrew and Fletcher.
Finally, I like how this story showed what greatness can often look like. Genius and brilliance of ten manifest in people who are ostracized, either by others or by themselves. Teller’s character sacrifices his time, his body, his mind, and relationships (or at least potential relationships) in order to tap into and fulfill his potential. Really, the only solid relationship he has – even within his own family – is with his father. I mean, the scene at the dinner table was incredibly uncomfortable. Luckily for us, the audience, we had the luxury of immediately cutting to the next scene instead of enduring awkward goodbyes. What hit home for me especially was the fact that he threw away any chance he had with Nicole (Melissa Benoist) so that he could free himself of any “distraction” that might hold him back. The breakup scene in the diner is so cringe-worthy it makes the aforementioned dinner scene seems pleasant by comparison. You want to jump into the film and interrupt him. Or slap him in the ear and give him the “what-the-hell-bro?” look.
Okay, so enough technical dissection – this was a fun movie to watch and it went by too quickly. I also like the open-ended nature of the story. Did Andrew go on to be one of the all-time greats? Did he appreciate the push from Fletcher? Did the two go on to reestablish a relationship? This movie is hardly a feel-good account from start to finish, but we are left with a lot of hope as the credits role. I doubt this film will come to feel tired with subsequent viewings.
RSS Feed