Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


U.N. Population Growth Data Is Bad News for Climate




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Arts and Culture

Oscars 2013: What the Best Picture Nominees Say About America

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 22, 2013
AP/Warner Bros. Pictures/Claire Folger

From left, John Goodman, Alan Arkin and Ben Affleck in “Argo.” The film has been the big winner this awards season so far.

By Carrie Rickey

Last year in this space, I made a case for the irrelevance of the Academy Awards. Given this year’s slate of nominees, I am prepared to eat some crow. I’m going to make a case for Oscar’s relevance.

From “Lincoln’s” portrait of a U.S. president pushing the 13th Amendment through a fractious Congress to “Zero Dark Thirty’s” profile of a CIA agent hunting for Osama bin Laden, six of the nine best picture nominees have unusual immediacy. Three are about the legacy of racial inequality; two about American intelligence and geopolitics; the last about a man with bipolar disorder who risks polarizing friends and family.

If an extraterrestrial landed on Earth, “Argo,” “Beasts of the Southern Wild,” “Django Unchained,” “Lincoln,” “Silver Linings Playbook” and “Zero Dark Thirty” each would be an excellent introduction to the American character. All these films struggle with social or political issues. In the aggregate, they make up a composite portrait of America.

What’s striking about these nominees, as Hendrik Hertzberg observed in The New Yorker, is how many of them engage with important events and themes in American history.

To dispense with the handicapping question upfront: My guess is that “Argo” will take best picture despite Ben Affleck’s failure to be nominated in the director category. (There tends to be a correlation between the best director and best picture winners.) What’s more attractive to Academy voters than a fact-based film in which Hollywood saves the CIA’s bacon, with a Hollywood ending to boot?

Let’s consider these six nominees alphabetically.

[Caution: For those who have yet to see these films, there are plot spoilers ahead.]

“Argo”

Affleck’s film, which was written by Chris Terrio, reflects how They see Us, how We see Them and how We pulled the wool over Their eyes. Them, of course, being non-Americans in general and Iranians in particular.

The movie begins with a prologue explaining how England and the U.S. engineered the 1953 coup in Iran that set the stage for the 1979 revolution. This provides historical context for the tensions between America and Iran that continue into the 21st century. It tells the story of six U.S. State Department workers in mortal peril during the larger crisis when Iranian revolutionaries took 52 Americans hostage in retaliation for President Carter extending political asylum to the reviled Shah of Iran.

There are many cockamamie schemes floated to spirit the State Department employees out of Iran. Cue the one from the CIA’s Tony Mendez (Affleck), who wants to pretend that the six are members of a production crew making a Hollywood sci-fi film called “Argo.” Mendez’s colleague calls it “the best bad idea.” This line invites the audience to howl in laughter at CIA bureaucrats while respecting those who had the cojones to pull off such a stunt.

Does it make sense that America-hating Iranians would be taken in by a fake Hollywood film crew? No. Yet for Americans the takeaway of the story about the phony movie that fooled the Iranians is that they may hate America, but everyone loves Hollywood.

“Beasts of the Southern Wild”

Dwight Henry, the nonprofessional actor who plays the father in this childlike parable for adults, said it best. He described the impressionistic adventure alluding all at once to surviving the flood, Hurricane Katrina and climate change as a “uniquely collaborative experience about people pulling together during disaster.” That’s what Americans do.

The film is about survival, hope and educating the next generation. From director Benh Zeitlin and screenwriter Lucy Alibar, the movie takes place in the Louisiana lowlands before and after a flood caused by the melting of the polar ice caps. It has the primal feel of a live-action version of Maurice Sendak’s “Where the Wild Things Are.” Narrated by Hushpuppy, a 6-year-old life force played by Quvenzhane [pronounced Kwah-van-JAHN-ay] Wallis, it is both a cautionary tale and a redemptive one. This film warns us that we have to do something about climate change, that failure to do so will hurt the weakest and poorest among us, and that with teamwork and ingenuity, we will survive.

The takeaway of “Beasts”? Reconciling a time-honored American contradiction, this tale underlines the importance of Hushpuppy remaining self-sufficient and strong while it also shows (literally and figuratively) that we are all in the same boat. That the boat in question here is a vessel with a truck body attached to a wheezing outboard motor lashed to 50-gallon drums to keep it afloat furthermore illustrates American ingenuity at its best.

“Django Unchained”

Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” is in two important ways like “Beasts of the Southern Wild.” (1) It is a parable of American inequality that (2) is directed by a white filmmaker whose entitlement to the material may seem, to some, unearned.

Can a white filmmaker make a movie about the black experience? Why not? Would a black filmmaker make a slavery revenge fantasy in which a white dentist named Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) frees a shackled slave (Jamie Foxx), arms him and teaches him a profitable trade? Doubtful. Just as it is doubtful that an African-American filmmaker would write and direct a scenario in which the most pernicious racist is the house Negro (here played by Samuel L. Jackson).

Implicitly running throughout Tarantino’s exploitative movie about human exploitation is the sense that the American crime of slavery, one gone 150 years without punishment, expiation or reparation, requires atonement. The further implication is that “Django” is that instrument of atonement.

Although “Django” is too tonally diffuse to provide one clear takeaway, the film celebrates that most American of pastimes: blood sport. Tarantino shows a spectrum of violence: freed slaves killing racists; slaves fighting one another to the death for the entertainment of their owners; attack dogs tearing apart slaves; slaves uprising and overturning the status quo. Isn’t fighting the status quo, after all, what the U.S. was built on and what Americans hold most dear?


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.