|
|
|
|
|  |
| By Amy Lamare, December 9, 2006 |
Last month Americans went to the polls and made a statement by turning control of the Senate and House over to Democrats. So what will Academy voters do when it comes time for them to cast their ballots for Best Picture nominees? Will they make a statement with their nominees for Best Picture?
What if Academy voters nominate both World Trade Center and United 93 for Best Picture? Will film aficionados all over the world start talking about how Hollywood is too ethnocentric and all about Americans licking their wounds or returning to the tragedy for the unification of the country and world it caused? Will people think we are even more self centered than originally thought? Perhaps it will reignite the conversations over water coolers that it is too soon to revisit the events of September 11, 2001. And consider this: would nominations for either United 93 or World Trade Center be nods to fine filmmaking? Are they really amongst the best pictures of the year? Or would their nomination be a purely emotional one?
World Trade Center and United 93 both deal with the same subject: September 11, 2001. However, they present different aspects of that day. WTC focuses on the events in New York City, the collapse of the Towers and the resulting rescue efforts. Two Port Authority officers and their wives are the subject of the film. Oliver Stone (OSTON) made a powerful film. However, in my opinion, United 93 was far more powerful. United 93 tells the story of the brave Americans who took control of their terrorist guided plane and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania rather than a monument in Washington DC. They knew they were going to die. But who knows how many lives they saved by preventing United flight 93 from reaching its intended target?
A similar and even more interesting situation exists in the possibility of both Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima (LFIJM) receiving dueling nominations. Both films deal with the events surrounding the World War II battle at Iwo Jima. One tells the story from the Allies’ point of view. The other tells the story from the Japanese point of view. It is not all that dissimilar to the situation we’ve got with WTC and 93, right? However, with our two Iwo Jima flicks we have but one director. Clint Eastwood (CEAST) directed both. Flags of our Fathers was released on October 20, 2006 and Letters from Iwo Jima will be released on December 20, 2006. Wow Clint must really be into the subject of World War II, right? Not at all my Traders. Eastwood is a pacifist. These two companion piece films are his anti war manifesto.
Eastwood shot Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima back to back. During his research for Flags, he came across these letters from the Japanese and became enthralled with their viewpoint on that fateful battle. Another story was born that Eastwood had to tell.
So which of Eastwood’s films gets the nomination? Being companion pieces, is it fair to single one out above the other? If Letters From Iwo Jima gets a Best Picture nod and Eastwood gets a Best Director nom for Flags of our Fathers does that make sense or is it a logical way to award his complete vision?
Four films, two subjects, three directors. What’s an Academy voter to do?
What would you do? Drop me a line on your opinions on this scenario at advice@hsx.com and I will feature your input in an upcoming article.
|
 |
|
|
