Last Stand/Gotta Say No

email this story
read comments (23)
post a comment

In the same way that one formerly Democratic U.S. Senator (Connecticut's Joseph Leiberman) and two conservative Democratic Senators (Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln) have stubbornly pledged to kill the public-option portion of the health care bill in defiance of common sense and against the wishes of almost everyone, I was the only Envelope Gold Derby Buzzmeter pundit to say "no" to Precious as a Best Picture finalist. In so doing I singlehandedly kept it out of the unanimous column.

I voted as I did not because Precious won't be Best Picture nominated -- of course it will -- but because portions of it are so ugly and unpleasant and horrific to sit through that they literally made me convulse. Someone had to stand up and at least symbolically say no. To me the Precious crimes -- i.e., the ones committed by Mo'Nique in the context of the film -- are not relatable aspects of the human condition. They are so malignant that it's very hard for me to nod and go "fine, good, well done" even within the remove of dramatic depiction.

I didn't vote as I did because Precious isn't a powerfully-acted film that's finally about caring and compassion -- it is that, at least in the third act -- but because I feel that a depiction of parenting this cruel and sadistic and beyond-the-pale deplorable -- in effect a slow murder of a child by her own mother -- must be responded to with an initial vote that says "uhhm, well, okay, it's a good film and I realize that Dave Karger and all the others are right...but not now."

Here's a summary of the yesterday's L.A. Times/Envelope Gold Derby Buzzmeter poll results, which will be refined and updated as things move along.

The only two unanimous choices for Best Picture (i.e., chosen by all 20 pundits) are Up In The Air and The Hurt Locker. The other big-vote getters are Precious, Invictus, Nine, Up, An Education, Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man.

Again....where is A Serious Man? You'd think that critics and pundits, at least, would understand that (a) now (i.e., mid November to early December) is the time to mix tea-leaf predictions with convictions and persuasions of their own, (b) a lack of soothing emotionality (and a chilly, analytical or even clinical vibe in place of same) is sometimes a hallmark of great, world-class filmmaking and (c) the fact that A Serious Man is ruthlessly brilliant and hilarious and honed like an effin' diamond...you'd think that critics and pundits might recognize this fact and, you know, have it count for something in their calculations? No?

The leading Best Actor contender is A Single Man's Colin Firth, followed by Up In The Air's George Clooney, Invictus's Morgan Freeman, Nine's Daniel Day-Lewis, Crazy Heart's Jeff Bridges and The Road's Viggo Mortensen,

And in the Best Actress, An Education's Carey Mulligan is in the lead, but only a notch ahead of Precious star Gabby Sidibe. Next comes Julia & Julia's Meryl Streep, The Last Station's Helen Mirren and Bright Star's Abby Cornish.

Jackson's Number<< previous | next >>Instant Recovery Karma

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 25, 2009 at 6:02 AM

comment #1

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Jeff, that was an... ill-advised comparison to start this article. To put it gently.

Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist at November 25, 2009 8:00 AM

comment #2

Josh Massey says ...

"...and against the wishes of almost everyone..."

What polls are you reading?

Posted by Josh Massey at November 25, 2009 8:03 AM

comment #3

Nick X says ...

"What polls are you reading?"

The ones that show the majority of Americans in favor of a public option.

But yeah, Jeff... odd comparison.

Posted by Nick X at November 25, 2009 8:20 AM

comment #4

Josh Massey says ...

ABC News's latest poll on the "public option" puts those in favor at a whopping 53%. That's almost everyone?

Posted by Josh Massey at November 25, 2009 8:28 AM

comment #5

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Gabe/The Playlist: The analogy works for me. Public option is a sensible, fair-minded idea that anyone with a brain can see the virtue of. It forces the private companies to deal with the reality of government-financed competition. And it'll be too effin' bad if they make less money. (That prospect actually kinda makes me feel all warm and wonderful inside.)

In the same light Precious is a "good" film that the vast majority of the pundits say will make the Best Picture nomination list -- it is a sensible choice for an Oscar pundit. To say no to either one is to truly be in denial. AND YET CERTAIN PARTIES ARE IN DENIAL and saying no for their own reasons.

Establishing a fair-minded government-run alternative to the commercial insurance companies who rip people off, nickle-and-dime them, force them into states of anxiety and panic and desperation, and deny coverage to those with pre-existing conditions is a perfectly sensible idea for those (a) who aren't rabid-dog righties whose allegiance to entrepenurial selfishness and rugged individualism means they would rather see the U.S. citizenry continue to suffer under private insurance rather than see the U.S. join ALL THE OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS IN THE WORLD WHO OFFER GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE and (b) whose thinking on the matter has been hopelessly corrupted or tainted by having received contributions from the medical establishment.

I've stated my reasons above for symbolically saying "no" to Precious. I think I've made myself clear on this matter.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at November 25, 2009 8:45 AM

comment #6

Sabina E says ...

I didn't vote as I did because Precious isn't a powerfully-acted film that's finally about caring and compassion -- it is that, at least in the third act -- but because I feel that a depiction of parenting this cruel and sadistic and beyond-the-pale deplorable -- in effect a slow murder of a child by her own mother -- must be responded to with an initial vote that says "uhhm, well, okay, it's a good film and I realize that Dave Karger and all the others are right...but not now."

But that's the point of a well-done, well-written, well-directed, well-acted film with a storyline that really grabs by you by your neck, shakes your soul furiously, and throws you out into the dirt, you can't help but despair at the fucked up state of humanity. Because it's THAT good and effective.

I give up, man. You're a great writer, but your taste in films confuse me sometimes.

Posted by Sabina E at November 25, 2009 8:50 AM

comment #7

OtownRog says ...

The bottom of that list is filled with films that Best Picture inflation could allow in, but I'd hate to see it. Ugh.
You're not hurting or holding back Precious ("Jeff sees Fat people!"), though I have to hand it to you, you've beaten a decent-not-great bomb defusing thriller into a sure thing contender. Unless the Academy is ignoring you navel gazers.

Posted by OtownRog at November 25, 2009 8:52 AM

comment #8

Adam says ...

Refusing to recognize a film about a young girl who overcomes her abhorrently abusive mother is tantamount to Holocaust denial. Just because it isn't pretty doesn't mean it's not part of the human condition. Let's not go overboard. These are Oscar predictions, not health care reform.

P.S. Joe Lieberman is not a Democrat.

Posted by Adam at November 25, 2009 8:57 AM

comment #9

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to DeafBrownTrashPunk: My taste in films confuses you? Okay, let me simplify my feelings about Precious. I was in agony watching the first half to 70% of it...okay? Have you ever seen a film that you've been wise enough to recognize as a quality-level enterprise -- a film that is well made and is expressing a powerful theme or story -- but which you nonetheless can't stand to sit and watch for the most part? You don't have to love and praise a film just because it's good. You can still hate portions of it and say that. It's perfectly allowable to express yourself this way.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at November 25, 2009 8:59 AM

comment #10

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Jeff, the public option saves lives. No offense to your forecasting, but picking/not picking "Precious" as a Best Picture contender in Oscar handicapping? I don't know if that's nearly so important.

Now, if you started championing a movie that isn't in the race and actually distanced yourself from the pack with an honest-to-god ORIGINAL choice, that would be brave. Again, not life-savingly brave, but still. You can't tell me with a straight face that the contenders you guys are batting about are exactly your own personal picks for best films of the year. And politics and award show traditions aside, I would think that's the most important thing.

"In The Loop" comes to mind- the film needs champions if it will enter the awards bracket. Powerful voices can help that. Despite dubious comparisons between political figures and yourself, you are one of these powerful voices.

Posted by Gabe@ThePlaylist at November 25, 2009 9:04 AM

comment #11

N. Siter says ...

I have to side with Jeff on this one. What he's talking about is basically the same thing as films that one can find to be excellent overall films and representative of the best of their year, but do not generate a desire to rewatch (and endure) again.

Speaking personally, I would say that both "Monster" and "Mysterious Skin" are excellent films (particularly the latter). But they are both so harrowing, that I honestly can't see myself watching them again.

But then, I'm the guy who has watched "The House of Sand and Fog" multiple times and has been made into a blubbering wreck each and every time.

Shades of grey, folks. Shades of grey.

Posted by N. Siter at November 25, 2009 9:07 AM

comment #12

Alvy Singer says ...

I feel the exact same way about "G-Force." On my deathbed, my last firing neuron will be flashing the image of a Guinea pig talking in the voice of Tracy Morgan.

Posted by Alvy Singer at November 25, 2009 9:34 AM

comment #13

Irving Thalberg says ...

Jeff, I think the weird thing about the analogy is that you view a public option as a good thing, a moral imperative (agreed) and Lieberman & Co. as spineless, duplicitous sell-outs (also agreed) but when it comes to crafting your PRECIOUS analogy you cast yourself in the comparable Lieberman role. So I guess things track in so much as you're minority figures railing against a majority view but don't so much track unless your goal was for us to see you in the role of the mustachioed villain w/r/t Gold Derby chart voting. Maybe you should've picked a plucky go-it-alone-do-gooder like Erin Brockovich instead.

Posted by Irving Thalberg at November 25, 2009 9:36 AM

comment #14

sz says ...

in terms of american films, is it just me or is this one of the worst years for movies in decades? i cant think of any films this year that would make the top 10 list of the decade. that said, i haven't seen fantastic fox yet. apparently it's really good.

Posted by sz at November 25, 2009 9:44 AM

comment #15

JohnCope says ...

I still haven't seen Precious yet but it's hard to believe that the guy who gave us Shadowboxer could make anything decent.

Posted by JohnCope at November 25, 2009 10:20 AM

comment #16

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

So, let me get this straight:

The only point of this Buzzmeter thing was to predict which films would make the final list of 10 nominees, yet Jeff decides to metaphorically grab the ball and go home because he doesn't like what the final score will be?

There's no notation other than "Jeff Wells is a holdout," which will suggest to anyone who looks the list over that this Wells guy is an idiot when it comes to predicting the most obvious nominees.

Are you sure that's what you wanted to accomplish with your buzzmeter-hijack?

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at November 25, 2009 10:37 AM

comment #17

Sabina E says ...

My taste in films confuses you? Okay, let me simplify my feelings about Precious. I was in agony watching the first half to 70% of it...okay? Have you ever seen a film that you've been wise enough to recognize as a quality-level enterprise -- a film that is well made and is expressing a powerful theme or story -- but which you nonetheless can't stand to sit and watch for the most part? You don't have to love and praise a film just because it's good. You can still hate portions of it and say that. It's perfectly allowable to express yourself this way.

Yeah, actually, I felt that way when I saw TOWELHEAD. It's definitely one of the most uncomfortable films that I had to sit through. I never want to see it again. But it's still a damn good movie with a very good storyline, sold acting, and great direction. I would recommend it to other people- but with a warning. It deserves recognition.

A film is supposed to make you feel. and that's what PRECIOUS did.

Posted by Sabina E at November 25, 2009 10:54 AM

comment #18

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Deathtongue: You really need to sit down and consider the difference between sounding like an "idiot" and sounding like a typical Oscar pundit analysis-whore whose whole thing is to predict what "they" will wind up voting for.

It's BORING and PATHETIC and a flagrant "up yours" to the MOVIE GODZ to use your soapbox to just say "well, this movie I just saw may be the one of the all-time greats in the history of motion pictures but it can't win with the Academy go-alongers so I'm going to vote for ten other less-good films because the Academy thinks the way it thinks and votes the way it votes." A nightmare!

Surely at this stage of the game the only HONORABLE WAY TO GO is blend in your own choices for best this and that along with your YAWN-INDUCING tea-leaf readings. If all you want to do as an Oscar-watching critic and pundit is read tea-leaves and gauge the direction of the wind with your moistened finger then you really should cut to the chase, climb to the top of a 20-story building on Sunset and jump off.

I understand whoring out and going with the consensus flow in late December or early January but the fun of the Oscar season from October-November to mid December or thereabouts is about fighting little wars and skirmishes. Each movie is its own little war. You have to choose sides and stand for what you believe, and that means you have to don your fatigues and backpack and gas mask and get on the battlefield with your rifle and bayonet and hand grenades and do some damage to the enemy.

If all you care about is reading tea leaves then you're not on the battlefield -- you're just sitting in the bleachers with your wife and family with an overcoat and a beaver hat and a little metal flask filled with Jack Daniels, watching the players and keeping score and lah-lah. Who are you and what are you if all you want to do is watch? Ask Theodore Roosevelt what he thought of such people.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at November 25, 2009 11:03 AM

comment #19

DeeZee says ...

"Have you ever seen a film that you've been wise enough to recognize as a quality-level enterprise -- a film that is well made and is expressing a powerful theme or story -- but which you nonetheless can't stand to sit and watch for the most part?"

Raging Bull and Where the Wild Things Are. I'd throw Eternal Sunshine in there, too, but it wasn't well made, so...

Posted by DeeZee at November 25, 2009 3:13 PM

comment #20

LarryGopnik says ...

Um, except that the point of this Buzzmeter thing was to PREDICT what you think WILL be nominated. It's hardly defiant to not pick something you think/know will be one of the 10 merely because you don't like it. It's fucking illogical. Bravo.

Posted by LarryGopnik at November 25, 2009 3:19 PM

comment #21

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Actually, I find the whole awards season outside of the critics picks (both individually and collectively) to be an infantile, pointless exercise.

So while I understand where you are coming from and find your attitude admirable, in the end I think good ol' Teddy R. would probably throw out Willy S's very apt quotation about something being full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at November 25, 2009 6:03 PM

comment #22