Why Tom Hanks is Nominated For an Oscar (But Shouldn’t Be) –or–Why Terrence Malick Won’t Win an Oscar (But Should)
by Matt Jones, Staff Writer
Photo by IMDB.com
The inclusion of Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in the Best Picture category during this year’s Academy Awards nominations was one of the ceremony’s greatest shocks to me. While the Tom Hanks/Sandra Bullock 9/11 drama is unquestionably a heartfelt movie, I have personal doubts that it should be considered for an Academy Award.
Did the film do anything differently? Has it done anything to stand out? Did any of the actors deliver incomparable performances? I believe that the answer to all of these questions is no. There was nothing in cinematography or storytelling that made this film different than the average Christmas feel-good movie. The only things that make it stand out are the big names and the 9/11 subject matter. The actors were good, but none of the performances were career bests (with the exception of Thomas Horn, whose extremely short career makes this fact an inevitability) and, in fact, I could see a number of actors in any of these roles. The only possible explanations as to why this film has been nominated are that 1) the story resonates especially deeply with the Academy voters or 2) there are more sinister forces at work.
The first explanation is believable given the fact that many voters (actors, directors, producers and other members of the film industry) maintain residences and business dealings in New York as well as Los Angeles, making it more possible that these individuals may have been directly affected by 9/11. But this certainly cannot account for the nomination entirely. We must attempt, then, to discover an explanation that is more complete and, unfortunately, more sinister.
The problem, then, is not with the film but rather with the awards themselves. This is a perfect example of how the Academy Awards do not honor those films that achieve new things with distinction, but rather the films that achieve things slightly better than what we have seen time and time again. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close presents a family drama and a child’s struggle in a slightly more polished and audience-friendly way than say, The Tree of Life, which takes risks with cinematography, storytelling, script and artistic direction. Malick’s flick is clearly more artistically adventurous and (not to predict the future) historically profound than Extremely Loud. Only thinly veiled by the Academy’s lip service to a handful of big name art films is the fact that the Oscars are motivated less by contributions to film as an art form and more by box office performance and movie-biz. Ever the ticket-selling darlings, it is not surprising that the Tom Hanks/Sandra Bullock star vehicle was a favorite of the Academy while only garnering a 46% from nationwide critics. Stated simply, by nominating this comparatively sub-par film, the Academy Awards have undermined their own prestige.
What, then, is the solution to this problem? I propose that the Academy add film critics to its ranks. While not ingrained in the studio system like its other members, critics are every bit as vital to the film business and are, in many ways, artists in their own right. The fact that certain awards nominees are nominated in direct conflict with critical reception ignores a vital cog in the film industry machine, an oversight that should be rectified immediately. If this step is taken, then I believe we can expect to see more artistic risk-taking and progression in the film industry as a whole. The result would be higher-quality films recognized with awards that have regained their former prestige.