The Academy Puts on a Good Show and Makes a Poor Showing
After being publicly shamed into retracting problematic changes to this year’s Oscars telecast—such as adding a Best Popular Film category and handing out four awards during the commercial breaks (including Best Editing and Best Cinematography)—the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences pulled off one of their better broadcasts of the last several years. The opening performance by Queen and Adam Lambert was fine, although I think it lacked feeling as it couldn’t feature Freddie Mercury, who is more or less the focus on Bohemian Rhapsody, but the audience in the Dolby Theater seemed to enjoy the change of pace. Maya Rudolph, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler demonstrated with a few sharp jokes that the broadcast didn’t need a host and full blown monologue to roast the show and get things moving. Without a host to hog screen time, the show was mostly on topic and on time, and it lacked any major production gaffes, like announcing the wrong Best Picture winner.
Though the Academy did a fine job letting the show take a backseat to the actual nominees and winners, the voting body still managed to take a few steps back in the face of the organization’s recent push for diversity in its membership and the kinds of projects that it honors. In the face of some disappointing wins, there were still numerous women and people of color who took home Oscars on Sunday, including three of the four acting winners, and Spike Lee, never before nominated in his long career, finally got to take the stage, and for a deserving film, too. Nothing can take away from those victories and forward steps they represent, but the elephants in the Dolby must be addressed.
Green Book’s Best Picture win is a loaded one for many reasons. Controversy has followed the film for several months, mostly concerning the fidelity of its telling of Dr. Don Shirley’s real life experience with Tony Vallelonga, whose son Nick was awarded as both co-writer and producer of the film. There have also been stories about the younger Vallelonga and the film’s director, Peter Farrelly, that speak to issues of race, politics and appropriate behavior in the workplace. Both men have apologized for their respective acts, though the controversies only added to the lingering sense that perhaps these men were not the right people to tell this story, if not at this time, then at least in this way.
Even if we set that all aside and look at Green Book in a vacuum, it’s hard to deny that, on its best day, it’s the kind of pat film about race relations that is no longer as groundbreaking or moving as it once may have been. At its worst, Green Book neglects the complexity of its African American co-lead to tell a story about yet another prejudiced white man learning that black people aren’t so different after all. As I put in my piece covering Green Book, there’s a little more to the film than that, but Tony is the main character, and, consequently, the more interesting Dr. Shirley’s story is expressed through a point of view we’ve seen many times before on film. Before shifting gears, I’ll point you to this eloquent deep-dive by Los Angeles Times film critic Justin Chang that gets at exactly why Green Book’s win has inspired such a sour reaction.
Also troubling last night was the show of support for Bohemian Rhapsody, the Queen/Freddie Mercury biopic that played too loosely with the facts while delivering a banal story of musicians we’ve seen too many times before. I give a lot of leeway to biopics rewriting history if it’s done with purpose, but Bohemian Rhapsody delivers no great emotional truth or filmmaking panache. Is it entertaining? That depends on if you like the music of Queen; if so, it’s a charming enough recap of their career, but too often lifeless. Even when the film finally comes alive, in the climactic Live Aid performance—the first time in the film when seeing the band play together seems like it actually means something to them—it’s far too little too late. Gertrude Stein said it best: “There’s no there there.“
This is also true of Best Actor winner Rami Malek’s performance, which I think is fine on its own merits (I know too little about Freddie Mercury to speak to the accuracy of his portrayal), but which is given little meat on the bone in the film’s screenplay. Watching the film left me with very little sense of what drove Mercury, other than marching to the beat of his own drum, but even at that, there’s no understanding of what that beat is. Malek also works with the disadvantage that the film leaves Mercury’s sexuality on the fringes (and cheaply rewrites the story of his HIV diagnosis as the band’s inspiration to perform at Live Aid), doing a disservice to his singular life. None of this is Rami Malek’s fault, especially as the surviving members of Queen shepherded this project to retain control over their story and music, but I think rewarding someone for lip syncing and providing charisma isn’t enough. Malek added dimension where he could, but he was ultimately brought on to a project that was never going to feel as true to Mercury and his story as it should have, and it’s too bad this vision has been honored against other more worthy works.
Bohemian Rhapsody is a totally unremarkable movie with a great soundtrack, so, like Green Book, it can be more favorably viewed in a vacuum, but taken as a piece of art the Academy has chosen to honor as among the best in 2018, it’s hard not to cringe. More than its shallow approach to Queen and Freddie Mercury, it’s because of director Bryan Singer. Not mentioned once on Sunday night, Singer was fired from the film as it was weeks away from finishing principal photography due to erratic behavior and not showing up for work. Dexter Fletcher (ironically, the director of the upcoming Elton John film Rocketman) was brought on to finish shooting and drag the film across the finish line, but Singer retains his sole credit under Directors Guild of America rules. More recently, The Atlantic published an extensive article alleging years of sexual abuse of underage boys by Singer. Allegations had come and gone in the past, but in the Me Too era, people are paying attention. I can’t lay those actions at the feet of anyone involved with Bohemian Rhapsody—and Malek reportedly played a role in getting Singer fired—but when the film itself is so negligible, why go out of your way to reward it? Perhaps the Academy was congratulating the work of the filmmakers despite their director’s influence and problems, but its four Oscars (chiefly Best Editing) will remain a puzzle.
Everything about the Academy Awards is subjective, and plenty of the films and artists awarded in the past haven’t aged well; but, some years feel particularly tone deaf, like the Academy intentionally drove off a cliff. This year’s ceremony will largely be remembered for what it got right (particularly Spike Lee’s win), in part because there was no clear alternative frontrunner—everyone remembers the upset of Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan—but I have no doubt cinephiles will look back at the 2018 Oscars and think, “BlacKkKlansman lost to that?” Or, “Ethan Hawke wasn’t even nominated, and Rami Malek won for that?“ When there’s no narrative about which particular film deserved it more, it’s hard to make the argument that something or someone were “robbed,“ but it doesn’t make it sting any less when something truly undeserving walks away with the gold.