
If you still haven't seen all the Oscar-nominated films, you're not alone. I still haven't seen a number of them, and I have less excuse than most people. After all, I live in a city in which pretty much every nominee has played. Some major contenders I haven't gotten around to -- with little reason for not -- include Atonement, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Into the Wild, all of which are still in theaters and are probably best to see on the big screen.
Apparently, at least according to Variety, a lot of people are seeing the Oscar nominees on the big screen compared to in previous (recent) years, as cumulatively the five Best Picture contenders have seen a significant bump at the box office since the nominations were announced. I would be extremely excited if I didn't believe the truth is that Juno's tremendous success has elevated the Best Picture box office average. The comedy is showing on far more screens, is much more accessible to a wide audience and has so far earned twice as much money domestically as the next highest-grossing Best Picture nominee. Variety also this week had published a story about how Juno is the one movie that may save the Oscar telecast's ratings, since it's the one movie people have actually been able to or bothered to see. One thing I will note, though, is that Best Picture nominee Michael Clayton came out on DVD this past Tuesday and yet there was still a significant number of people seeing it in theaters through the week. Additionally, I would be interested to know how many people took advantage of yesterday's AMC Theatres-hosted Best Picture marathon.
This week I finally saw The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which is nominated for Best Cinematography and Best Supporting Actor (despite Casey Affleck's appearance in nearly every scene), but unfortunately I watched it on DVD. This was probably the one nominee that I wished had received a post-nomination-announcement re-release, but alas it did not. When it was in theaters, though, it played in the one cinema in all of New York City that I refuse to go to, at least for films like this, because the projection and small screen do little justice to beautiful cinematography and expansive landscapes. However, I probably should have just weathered that experience, because it is more difficult, in my opinion, to view a two-and-three-quarter-hour movie with the comforts and distractions of a living room. As much as I loved most of The Assassination of Jesse James, I think I would have loved it and appreciated it more had I seen it on an appropriately sized screen.
But perhaps I wouldn't have had that great an experience had I seen it in a theater in the last week prior to the Oscar ceremony. I came to realize these past seven days leading up to the ceremony that this is a terrible time for serious moviegoers and film lovers to take in an Oscar-nominated picture. Maybe I had an isolated experience, but I went to see There Will Be Blood for a second time early last week and while I enjoyed the film even more than I had the first time, I could tell that many in the audience were not having as good a time. And it nearly threw off my enjoyment.
I caught sight of one person in my row who was slouched down, frowning and folding her arms, obviously bored and/or angry, throughout much of the screening. At the end, she got up and unsurprisingly expressed loudly that she had hated it (by the way, she was one of my companions -- not that it matters, she could have been anyone, though it did make our post-show discussion more interesting). At different times during the film, I looked back behind me to see how other audience members were responding (yes, I love moviegoing so much that I like to watch the people almost as much as I like watching the movies themselves). It wasn't too noticeable that any of them were necessarily having a bad time, but there was a feeling I got from the crowd as a whole. It was an uncomfortable feeling where during the first hour of the film the silence of the audience seemed more awkward, and the laughter that came during the rest of the film also seemed to stem from that same awkwardness.
I figure that in much of the country this isn't as big a problem. There Will Be Blood and the other Best Picture nominees may be new to your area and so most of the audience could be excited about finally being able to see these films. Where I saw There Will Be Blood was the same place I saw it months ago, in a city where it has been available since late December. I believe many of the people in the audience during my first viewing really wanted to see the movie and were excited while watching it, even if they conclusively disliked it. And I believe that many of the people in the audience during my second viewing were kind of dragging their feet to see the movie, ultimately deciding to bite the bullet prior to the Oscar ceremony so they wouldn't be completely in the dark during the broadcast.
Of course, in those other parts of the country where they're finally being exposed to great movies like There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, there is likely the same sort of feet-draggers. And there is likely in those parts the same sort of boredom and disappointment going on this week. I'll admit that I was disappointed with one or more parts of each of the nominated films, primarily because they were so built up, even as early in the game as I saw them. I know that feeling well of seeing something that's so favorably talked about that it can't possibly live up to its buzz. At this point in time, anybody seeing No Country for Old Men for the first time is fairly apt to say that often uttered, "Yeah, it was good, but not that good." As for anybody just seeing Juno for the first time, they may actually be utterly confused as to why it's up for Best Picture. None of this is to say either film is bad; they just may not live up to the hype for a lot of people, and may therefore be met with that uncomfortable and awkward atmosphere being felt in theaters this past week.













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-24-2008 @ 10:59AM
Rusty Stardust said...
who cares about hype and box office, besides the bean counters? best picture should be just that. the best picture. this has been the best year for movies in a long time. so what that there are some knuckle draggers out there who can't sit through a long, complex movie? 'there will be blood' is a modern classic. and will be around for ages. juno? not so much. i saw 'there will be blood' at a packed house in a huge theatre here in san francisco, and you could feel the excitement all around. i never got the sense that people couldn't handle it. in fact, there was a lot of heavy clapping at the end. and, when people clap at a movie it's a big deal. it's not like any of the filmmakers or actors are there to hear it. i've seen the movie three times, and it keeps getting better. it's a fable about the creation of our modern society and all the intrigue, deceptions, struggles and heartbreak that went into it's foundation. a slight movie about a pregnant teenager can't even begin to compare. i don't care how much money it made. by that estimate 'wild hogs' should be in the running, as well. seriously, if box office is what goes into consideration for best film then the oscars is even a bigger joke than i thought...
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 11:09AM
CPav said...
My sons and I went to the AMC event yesterday, and had a blast. Add me to the group of people who positively hated There Will Be Blood. I never felt that Daniel Day Lewis' performance was anything but a performance (as opposed to Javier Bardem in No Country, who I felt inhabited the character), and while I understood the arc of the character, I felt the film itself failed to demonstrate it to me. My 18 year-old son, on the other hand, loved Blood and hated No Country.
I liked Michael Clayton better than the high schoolers I was with; I think its themes and conflicts were probably more mature-skewing and less universal than some of the others.
We all loved Juno.
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 12:45PM
eringeoff said...
>>"When (Assassination of JJ) was in theaters, it played in the 1 cinema in all of NYC that I refuse to go to, because the projection and small screen do little justice to beautiful cinematography and expansive landscapes."
You should include the name of this theatre. The only way cinemas will ever get better is if people stop supporting lousy ones and increase their attendence at great ones.
And the best way for that to happen is to spread the word about the best and the worst.
Jonesy
www.OnTheBigScreen.net
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 12:54PM
Tony said...
The theater Mr. Campbell is referencing is undoubtedly the Angelika (whose screen is fine, plus they just got new projectors and seats over the past year, so I don't get his projection comment). I'm willing to let him slide though, because the Angelika has the subway line running right by it, which createst distracting noise.
Unfortunately for him, the film screened at the AMC25 for a few weeks, so he could have caught it there. Beautiful projection.
2-24-2008 @ 1:07PM
Christopher Campbell said...
Yes, the Angelika. I wasn't aware they got new projectors or new seats, though. I guess that's good to know, and should be more promoted. I know I wasn't the only one who was avoiding seeing movies there. I have to admit a possible-seeming bias since I was a manager there, too. But my dislike of the viewing experience had nothing to do with that. When I was there we had excellent projectionists, but I just hated the small screens and the structure and atmosphere of the auditoriums. As for the AMC25, I guess I just avoid that place because I hate going anywhere near 42nd/Times Square area. I really have no excuse for not going there to see Jesse James, though. They do have good systems and screens there.
2-24-2008 @ 12:47PM
Rusty Stardust said...
i'm sorry, but daniel day-lewis didn't inhabit the role?! what movie did you watch? he simply was daniel plainview. i don't know how you could view it any other way. javier bardem was great. but, daniel day-lewis simply had the more expansive and demanding role. and, he killed it...
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 2:10PM
Aberdeen said...
I wish I could afford to go to the cinema...alas, it's dvd only or me.
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 4:34PM
MCW said...
The only criticism I have heard about Jesse James is it's 3 hr. runtime. I have yet to watch it, and it's mostly because of the 3 hours. That's one hour too many... did it bother anyone else?
Otherwise, I did see No Country, and I thought it was excellent. Hopefully it gets some recognition tonight, and more people go check it out.
Reply
2-24-2008 @ 7:36PM
Gary said...
The running time of Jesse James never bothered me at all, it was an outstanding film and should really be one of the five nominated for the Oscar. It is shame that not many went to see this movie because I am sure that in the future this will be recognized as a classic and one of those "never even got nominated films".
Reply