Oscar's Lessons

Sigh. Oh well. My complaints are nothing new, and will probably make little difference. Criticizing the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has become a national pastime. We all know the ceremony is flawed, self-congratulatory, superficial, and mixed up with money and power. And the media that packages the Oscars is as interested in skimpy outfits as it is in appreciating excellence. I've heard many people asking, "Why pay attention at all? It's so meaningless … what's the point?"

Despite how the Oscars frustrate me, I cannot write off Oscar-watching as a waste of time. There is value in seeing a community show appreciation to a hard-working artist (when that actually happens.) We all love the joy on the winner's face. It can be genuinely moving to see artists applauded in front of a large crowd of their peers, many of whom are the folks that inspired them. While it is unhealthy to strive for the approval of others, it is a wonderful thing to offer thanks and appreciation to someone for a job well done. It is something we don't do for each other enough.

This year especially, the speeches were inspiring, heartfelt, and even dramatic. They challenged us to be creative, to persevere in pursuit of our dreams. Traffic director Steven Soderbergh skipped the usual thank yous and dedicated his Oscar to anyone who spends part of the day "creating." Russell Crowe's speech sought to encourage aspiring talents in the suburbs who don't believe their wildest dreams can come true. Famous producer Dino de Laurentiis focused his clout and integrity into a challenge, asking studios to be bold and explore new talents and voices. He's right in reminding us that many people have something valuable to share, no matter where they live, how rich or how poor.

And Steve Martin made this ceremony even more worthwhile. His sharp-edged humor showed up Oscar for the superficial, commercial venture that it tends to be. At last, a little honesty in the spotlight.

There are other reasons to watch this annual spectacle. We can learn a lot about how to tell stories effectively by keeping an eye on what moves, inspires, and excites people. Gladiator, for all of its clichés, worked. It is an age-old formula. Moses confronts Pharaoh, and the suffering people are released. Joseph, by integrity, ascends to leadership. Maximus is a compelling hero. And the villain Commodus loses even when he thinks he's won, made a fool by his own pride and cowardice. Excesses and shoddiness aside, Gladiator reveals a few glimmers of the truth—that pride comes before a fall, and that the man who lays down his life for his friends is a hero indeed.

Why are people drawn to these predictable stories? For a lot of reasons, not all of them good. But something in us hungers for reassurance that evil will be overcome. In a cynical age, we want to see somebody who can overcome weakness and say the things that we ourselves find hard to say. We want to know that somebody will step into our lives and make everything all right. Erin Brockovich will defeat the corporation. Young Jen will outgrow her rebelliousness and become the heroine of legend. The trapped narcotics cop will break free of the dangerous drug underworld. The nasty village mayor will learn to enjoy life … and chocolate.

If the contemporary church's artists would turn their attentions away from art as Christian propaganda, we might discover we have some good stories to tell. And those stories can say more than we ever intended them to. If we would focus on originality, excellence, and creatively telling the truth in love—like Traffic does so boldly, like Crouching Tiger does so artfully—we might show the world a light that it could not resist celebrating. Jesus knew that better than anyone. That's why he answered questions with storytelling and beautiful metaphors about the kingdom of God. Avoiding explanations or didactic moralizing, he said, "For those with ears to hear, let them hear."

Meanwhile, at the multiplexes and the art-house theatres, 2001 rumbled along with mediocre-to-awful new releases, and a couple of diamonds in the rough.

Hot from the Oven

Movie Parables' Michael Elliott writes, "Director David Mirkin keeps the focus upon the sexuality rather than the intelligence of the protagonists. What Heartbreakers does is to elevate physical attraction to an almost solitary position of importance … and that truly is heartbreaking." The U.S. Catholic Conference complains that the movie "is sporadically amusing but is weighed down by the script's predictability." Ted Baehr at Movieguide says, "The climax of this story has a strong moral point to make about love and marriage, but it is surrounded by distasteful material." Preview's critic, on the other hand, declares that "lack of any morals … obscenities and crude sexual humor … earn this 'romantic comedy' a very objectionable rating."

Holly McClure at The Dove Foundation found some redeeming qualities in the film. "Beneath the funny outer con layer of the story is a dysfunctional, hurt mother, struggling to let go of a daughter who needs to be out on her own. I liked the fact that in the end, choices are made to turn lifestyles and behavior around for the good. And honesty becomes the best policy at the end of all the lies." Family-friendly critic Phil Boatwright at The Movie Reporter disqualifies this film for younger viewers, but he had a good time. "This is one very funny, sexy comedy caper. Everyone in the film, especially Ray Liotta, has perfect comic pitch, and there is a positive message about love filling the emptiness of our lives." J. Robert Parks at The Phantom Tollbooth writes that Gene Hackman's "physical timing is hilarious" in his supporting role as a coughing chain-smoker. Parks concludes, "Heartbreakers might be worth seeing just for Hackman's performance. It's star power in the service of something wonderful."

In a Rolling Stone interview a couple of years ago, Steve Martin was asked what he thought of mainstream comedy these days. Dismayed, Martin replied that most contemporary comedy has become extremely mean-spirited. The current trend of teen comedies that push the limit of crass, crude humor has only proven his point.

Say It Isn't So, which opened this week, sounded like the last straw for critics, whether in the mainstream or the religious media. Movie Parables' Michael Elliot writes, "The humor is coarse and rather mean-spirited in an offhand and casual way." He draws conclusions about the troubling influence of films like this. "The ever increasing amount of crudity in today's mainstream films only adds to the growing perception that a moral decline is taking place in our society. Detractors can 'say it isn't so' as much and as often as they like. The content of this film indicates otherwise." Other critics in the religious media are lining up to agree. Dick Rolfe at The Dove Foundation calls the movie a "sub-sophomoric piece of wasted celluloid." Movie Reporter Phil Boatwright speculates, "Comic writers aren't spending sleepless nights looking for funny gags, but rather, ideas on what will jolt the audience." The U.S. Catholic Conference calls the film "draining" and The Phantom Tollbooth's J. Robert Parks calls it "an abomination from start to finish."

Parks blames the movie's failures on freshman director J.B. Rogers, whom he says "doesn't have a clue as to how to shoot a comedic scene. His timing is horrible, as the punchline either comes too early or, more frequently, far too late." Mainstream critics, including Roger Ebert, agreed. Ebert believes the filmmakers are trying to duplicate the balance of sentimentality and crass humor that made the Farrelly Brothers' There's Something About Mary so popular."Few of the gags really work," he writes. "They know the words but not the music."

A talk-heavy comedy about a web of romantic relationships, The Brothers, has critics calling it a guys' version of Waiting to Exhale. Dick Rolfe at The Dove Foundation sees the film as a failed opportunity. "This could have been a tender story of the coming of age of a group of young men and a love story of repentance and reconciliation. That part of the story only takes about 20 minutes, leaving 77 minutes of time to fill with every form of debauchery—real or imagined. In my opinion, The Brothers is an insult to the notion that art imitates life." Preview posts that "This humorous look at sex, love and relationships will attract fans of the stars but explicit sexual material may detract from a long run." A critic at the U.S. Catholic Conference says, "Director Gary Hardwick's male perspective on dating and marriage lacks energy and uses clichéd dialogue to state the obvious."

Roger Ebert's Chicago Sun-Times review finds something to admire in one of the stories, in which a couple learns to tell each other the truth and deal with the consequences. "Their relationship redeems the movie," he argues, "because it involves real issues, and not simply plot points that are manipulated to keep them apart until it's time to push them together."

Still Cooking

Enemy at the Gates continued its impressive run as well. While some critics in last week's Film Forum were impressed by the suspenseful showdown between Stalingrad snipers, this week J. Robert Parks at The Phantom Tollbooth says he was not. "On three or four occasions, Vassily and Konig are hunkered down, waiting for the other to make a mistake. But there's never any doubt that both will make it through to the next scene. This lack of tension is a serious problem." He also questions the film's integrity, as fiction loosely based on a true story. "What are we to make of a film that presents itself as thinly fictionalized history and yet follows a standard Hollywood formula? Do we take the film to task for its presumption and enormous historical flaws, or do we ignore its ludicrous claims of authenticity and judge it as we would any big-budget movie?"

Side Dishes

Christopher Nolan's Memento is dazzling critics as it unveils its story backwards. It tells the story of a man whose short-term memory fails constantly, and thus he's never sure why or how he got where he is … trapped in a murder mystery. We're not sure either, until the next scene, which shows us what came previously. This brain-teaser has most critics impressed, but a few of them are more irritated than excited. "It's easily one of the best films to come along this year," says Kevin Maynard at Mr. Showbiz. "Nolan's engrossing, backwards-ticking noir will run you so thoroughly in circles that you'll need to see it at least twice for maximum enjoyment." Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman raves, "Nolan is a moody craftsman of dazzling vision and skill. Memento has scenes that command you with their cleverness. There's a suggestion that [the lead character] may be a sociopathic addict, unconsciously hooked on vengeance, yet Pearce's extraordinary performance lends even the smallest events the aura of a life or death search, a quest for meaning." Anthony Lane at The New Yorker was bewildered by the film even as he was entertained. "There is a fine, despairing comedy to these events—not just in our fidgety hero, but in the constant thwarting of our need to know. After all, the solution to a whodunit is never easy when you can't even be certain what got done."

But perhaps this is a case of impressive style covering insignificant substance. Charles Taylor of Salon.com observes, "There's something basically nonsensical about asking an audience to watch a scene without any of the background information or emotional history that would allow them to respond to what's going on. You might suspect that it's told backwards because telling it forwards would tip us off much sooner that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense." At The New York Times, A. O. Scott calls Memento "a brilliant feat of rug-pulling, sure to delight fans of movies like The Usual Suspects and Pi." But he adds, "it doesn't in the end leave much of an impression. Like a day in Leonard's life, it slips easily from memory, favoring sensation over insight and the frisson of artificial confusion over any contemplation of human reality."

Movieguide's Ted Baehr says, "Memento brings to light some intriguing thoughts on the nature of human beings and their motives. The answers to those questions lead to a narrow and self-devoted view of the world." But Peter T. Chattaway, discussing the movie at the OnFilm eGroup discussion list, writes that the film "raises all sorts of questions for the Christian viewer — concerning the roles of "instinct" and repetition (i.e., following an impulse versus denying our impulses in favor of a more systematic order) in our own lives, and our own reliance on the notes left by an otherwise long-forgotten past."

The Dish looks like the kind of movie that the whole family can enjoy. In an obscure Austrailian community, a group of local technicians work with an American from NASA to operate a giant telescope during the moon landing of 1969.

Ted Baehr at Movieguide raves, "The Dish is winsome and leaves you with a feeling of joy that these men were able to overcome incredible odds to place a man on the moon and bring him back. Sam Neill is particularly excellent in this movie as Cliff." He is also pleased that it "has some positive references to God, plus a terrific church scene with a sincere prayer by an archetypal Anglican priest at a crucial moment."

The New York Times' Stephen Holden is also uplifted, saying that this "feel-good movie … doesn't make you uncomfortable for being awed and getting misty-eyed at the astounding combination of teamwork, technology and sheer luck that made Apollo 11 such a success." At The New Yorker, David Denby comes the closest to finding fault with the film, calling it "A pleasant, even charming, movie, but so determinedly small-scale and personal that it flirts with innocuousness."

It's worth mentioning that The Dish has thus earned the best reviews of 2001 so far. Looking at its competition, though, that's not saying a whole lot. Here's hoping the movies have much better things in store for us this year.

Next week:The Widow of St. Pierre, a little movie that's inspiring strong opinions in Christian critics, and they don't all agree. Series 7, a satire about a reality television show in which the contestants strive to kill each other off. And reviews of several more new films.

Jeffrey Overstreet is on the board of Promontory Artists Association, a non-profit organization based in Seattle, which provides community, resources, and encouragement for Christian artists. He edits an artists' magazine (The Crossing), publishes frequent film and music reviews on his Web site (Looking Closer), and is at work on a series of novels.

Copyright © 2001 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere