Fuck those people... that's all I'm going to say and all that needs to be said.

I'm baffled: About the only thing you could "love" Tilda Swinton in before CLAYTON was NARNIA. I mean, THE DEEP END, ORLANDO, Derek Jarman pictures--not exactly cuddly, "inspirational" fare, and a lot of it avant-garde. (And MICHAEL CLAYTON is uplifting, just not in a hearts-and-flowers way.) Your friend seems to have given up on the faith.

In the words of David Letterman, if you have a friend who prefers plain cheese pizza, they probably shouldn't be your friend.

Your friend that couldn't bothered to see NCFOM, TWBB or even JUNO has a bigger problem. He/She may not be into movies at all. I mean, come on.

She was in Adaptation and Broken Flowers? What else do you need?

Not that I don't agree to a certain extent, but at the same time, anybody who loves anything could say the same about their passion. I love silent film, but I don't lecture Jeff that he's wasting his time talking about shit modern movies when he should be taking note of Anthony Asquith's A Cottage in Dartmoor coming out on DVD. My mom loves flamenco dance, but she understands that I get about as much from two dancers doing that as I do from watching two moving vans park. Everybody has their thing and this year in particular, I think the movies that were most admired were insidery movie-movies in a lot of ways, to love No Country For Old Men you have to be the sort who smiles with delight when a crazy killer starts walking around in his socks-- or more to the point, when a director gives you a loving closeup of his toes in those socks during a tense scene. To love There Will Be Blood you have to be willing to spend 2-1/2 hours puzzling out tiny clues about a deeply dislikable character. These were not-- except for Juno and Once-- approachable movies; they were geek movies. You're not a bad person if you didn't come to them a member of the small coterie they were made for.

Jeff, I share your concerns on this subject. I live on the east coast in a pretty progressive and well educated college town, and my so-called "movie buff" friends have not seen very many if any of these movies. I saw all of the films and performances in the top categories, and while I don't think that is necessary, I bang my head against the wall begging friends to at least NCFOM, to no avail.

It is virtually impossible to convince people to see "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" once they hear the word "paralyzed," but I try to explain that while the circumstances are depressing, this is ultimately a positive and uplifting movie about the resiliency of the human spirit, but they won't have anything to do with it.

I don't know if this limited anecdotal evidence should concern Hollywood, but it is clearly reflected in the poor TV ratings for the Oscar show.

Massachusetts, huh? First they refuse to vote for Obama in their primary and now they're NOT going to see quality movies? They sound like a bunch of racist, illiterate, slack-jawed rubes, if you ask me.

Judging by the overnight ratings, which are usually driven by popular movies that give the audience a "rooting interest," there's a lot of folks out there like Jeffrey's friend.

I personally think that the primary reason for film is to entertain and, to a lesser extent, enlighten. If the entertainment hook is not there, most people will not allow the film to enlighten them. Of course, I find movies like TWBB and NCFOM entertaining, so what do I know?

Oh, and Tilda Swinton was terrific in Constantine. The movie was so-so, but she chewed the scenery like an absolute pro.

Everybody forgot The Beach, too.

Swinton's been out there a lot, but she's managed to avoid seeming like she's taken a lot of paycheck jobs, by at least bringing something extra to every one of them. Her indie cred is so high she's practically guaranteed to be the baddie in the next Jason Bourne movie.

Why are you friends with Gorilla Nation, did she have your baby, or something?

jeff's friend probably has kids...

The real problem here isn't who saw what movie or who agrees with whom.

It's this "I don't watch films with violence. I don't watch films with downer endings. I don't watch films with unlikable characters."

It's a combination of living in denial and entitlement (as is Hollywood owes them something) that's insane.

I would just remind them that we all die alone and nothing really matters anyway in the long run, and then never speak to them again.

What's funny is that I bet many of these same people who claim to not like "downer" films are the same ones who suck on TV and watch grim soap operas, COPS and all the mean-spirited, soul-degrading reality shows. Funny dat.

"What if nobody actually saw all those movies? Isn't that something you should talk about?"

Well, define "nobody." If you mean "only a very small percentage of the population," well, that's applicable to -- oh, I dunno, maybe 80-90 percent of the movies released every year. This is a country with a population of 300 million people. If, say, 6 million folks go to see Movie A -- enough for it to gross roughly between $40-$50 million in first-run release -- you're still talking about only 2 percent of the populace.

only Juno had over 15 million admissions. All the other had between 4 to 6 million admissions. Naturally the telecast is going to have a low ranking because people just don't know the films.

I only saw one of the films in the theater - why? Cause I've got Netflix. Why should I pay $20 bucks to take the wife to see a film when I pay $17 a month for unlimited DVD rental? Not like I have to wait a year for the film to get on DVD. more people would "watch" the Oscar contenders if they came out on DVD sooner.

and there is a problem in depressing movies. People go to the cinema to have a nice night out and hopefully get laid afterward. How is someone really going to get their date lubed up for love after watching No Country or There Will Be Blood? After Juno, it will be oral only. Nobody wants to go out to be brought down - unless they're going to a funeral.

JW: "Movies are not supposed to be pills that you take to feel better. They're not travelling carnivals with elephants and jugglers. They're supposed to be aesthetic journeys and emotional hikes that get us in touch with things that too many of us tend to push away (or anesthetize ourselves from) in our day to day."

Cripes, as if we're too happy?! I would say that these days we're generally much less in touch with happiness and bright light than with the garbage piling up on the street. It's the vulnerability of beauty and joy that we tend to push away.

People who make art out of downers deserve the bill from their shrinks and pharmacists.

Does Jeff also think Obama is too upbeat and ought to "get real?" I've got a candidate for him, then.

And usually I don't think creative people care much about what other people think their creations are "supposed" to be. They also don't tend to cramp others with their opinions about it. People telling us what art is supposed to be are generally not artists themselves, whose own opinions are obvious from their work.

Too soon!

Friends like this need enemas.

Just realized a fair amount of people probably know Swinton from CONSTANTINE, no? I guess that's the Gorilla Nation for you.

corey3rd,

For what it's worth: I got lucky after TWBB with the soon-to-be wife. Juno, not so much. Different strokes for different folks.

Thanks JVD. There Will Be Too Much Information.

"Jeff, I share your concerns on this subject. I live on the east coast in a pretty progressive and well educated college town, and my so-called "movie buff" friends have not seen very many if any of these movies."

I'm sorry, but no one can be referred to as a movie buff if they haven't at least seen two or three of the best picture nominees. That's completely ridiculous. I'm a casual "movie buff" who has been too lazy to get to the theater very much in the past year for various reasons and even I still saw all five best picture nominees at one point or another.

Jay T:

I agree, but I am starting to believe that people like us (who see all the nominated films) are real statistical outliers...

Did you drink her milkshake?

Jeff continues to think this is a "head in the sand" attitude, but I'm with Corey on this. These kinds of movies (even Juno) were always a niche market. Today, even more so.

First, most people go to the movies to be entertained. Yes, even you Jeff. A good steak is a good steak, but french fries and ice cream get you through the work week. I love four of the five BP nominees. Great films. Wonderful, would love to watch them over and over. But not every movie has to be like this stuff. It's not the downer aspect, it's the "heavy" aspect that gets you. People like light stuff *as their standard fare*, it's human nature.

Second, the Netflix factor is huge, and getting bigger every year. Big event movies will get people to the theater. Throw in some special effects and Dolby Digital sound, and people will be more inclined to see them in the theater.

But the niche movies will suffer-- and they'll continue to suffer, because the audience can take one look at them and say, "I'm not paying $50+ for my family to go see something like that dimly projected out-of-focus in a theater filled with annoying customers and rude theater employees, I'll just add it to my Netflix queue and be done with it."

Third, how many forms of entertainment are there today? In the supposed heyday of "modern" film, the 1970s, you had books, six channels of TV, and the movie theater. Today, I have digital books, six *hundred* channels (many of them in high-def, thus better looking than your average multiplex makes them look), and that wonderful little intertubes thing.

In 1988, I spent maybe three hours a week on a computer. In 1998, maybe thirty hours. In 2008, I spend pretty much every moment I'm not stuck with my GF stuck in front of a computer.

Fourth and finally, Jeff, if it makes you feel anybetter, I'm willing to bet my house that most everyone alive will see No Country For Old Men. Just give it ten years. After DVD, after a million repeats on HBO, then TNT, then TBS. That's what happens these days.

These *are* good movies. Great ones. It's just that many of them aren't enough to get people to go to the theater in the narrow window that you can get people to go to the theater. On DVD, online, on cable-- they'll discover their audience. Just not fast enough to make a mint during their first run.

Every time you complain about this "problem" without recognizing that America's moviegoing habits have changed, permanently, you're coming across as the Uncle Festus you love to needle.

"In 2008, I spend pretty much every moment I'm not stuck with my GF stuck in front of a computer."

Boy, too bad you're stuck with a human instead of that screen all day and night.

I thought you were a conservative...

It's pretty simple: If you didn't see the movies, then why would the Oscars even interest you. The Oscars are for the best movies. If you haven't seen 'em, then the Oscars are NOT FOR YOU. Run off and play now...

But Christian, if I wasn't stuck in front of my computer, how would I ever get to enjoy your pleasant and charming company?

;-)

I read Wells' post a couple of times.

I'm trying to get some family members to watch IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH. It doesn't have to do with the war, they loved NO END IN SIGHT. But in a hearbeat they can change their mind and say..."too emotional, not right now." I tried to tell them it's not like watching the ultimate downer of all time, but it IS emotional.

Then I said something like, "you shouldn't be so AFFECTED, you can still absorb things and really enjoy it if it's well made, as opposed to watching DUMB AND DUMBER right now." But they wouldn't budge. Manana manana.

I like your response Wells. I guess they don't always make people feel better, but good and great ones almost always make me feel good, even if they're "depressing."

"But Christian, if I wasn't stuck in front of my computer, how would I ever get to enjoy your pleasant and charming company?"

I am honored you find me more time-valued than your GF. Liberals are more fun hang with.

I seem to be missing keys this week or sumthin'...

As previously mentioned, the Netflix factor is huge. And I agree with Dave, going to the theater is many times more annoyance than pleasure.

In addition, between the Internet and satellite/cable television we now have an electronic media that encircles the globe like the Van Allen Belt. Films and movie stars are too palpable, less godlike, and more commonplace. The Golden Age of Hollywood has passed.

People used to go to the movies for a variety of reasons, such as to be entertained passively, or to escape, or to engage in social protest/ societal revolution. Now we actively participate in media, like on this blog right here.

Hence, the need to go out and see the year's top films is not that pressing. Films do not inform us as the used to, we actively seek out information now. And the consumer has the ability to arrange showings to fit their own schedule with Netflix and DVR's and downloads.

I also agree with Wells that topics don't necessarily have to make you feel better, but if a film has a dark subject it had better be made with deft hands.

However, more uplifting films would be embraced if the directors and writers had the sensibilities to make them. I recently saw a DVD in which Claudette Colbert and a black woman joined forces in 1934 to create a pancake empire. Along the way, they addressed race relations and were kind to each other.

Some say that the racism and stereotypes in the film are enough to make one cringe. But given that it was made in the 1930s, the film was extremely progressive.

The title is "Imitation of Life," and I recommend it highly.

Is it wrong to think that maybe there is a level of downbeat romanticism going on in movies today? That artists have come to equate "violent" and "grim" too closely with "real?" It's possible.

That said, I love the films. And they weren't badly watched, compared with the two most recent Oscar years. Which makes the sharpness of the ratings fall a bit of a mystery to me. Chances of The Dark Knight getting an Oscar nod just went up substantially, provided that it's any good.

We live in a time when 12-year-olds are suicide bombers; many people can't afford health care; most people are basically indentured servants to their mortgage and credit debt; college and high school campuses are regularly turned into shooting galleries; we've ruined our environment and natural resources; people kill each other over $100 a barrel oil; you have to kill at least 5 people for your mass murder to be newsy enough for the newspaper; the ruling elite are a bunch of liars and cheats (and I don't necessarily mean the politicians); we are constantly awaiting the "inevitable" next terrorist strike; and many people spend their most "relaxing" time of the day in traffic gridlock ............and the films, which reflect our times, are supposed to be HAPPY???

I don't necessarily disagree with you, Balthazar. I'm partially playing devil's advocate.

Of course, at the same time, what films do we most remember out of the Great Depression? Fred Astaire musicals and comedies involving millionaires.

I'll strongly disagree with your logic here.



This paints everyone who doesn't share your taste in movies as uneducated plebs, too hopeless and inert to figure out the realities of the world without the great shining light of the cinema screen to tell us what to think and how to live our lives, completely ignoring the realities of our day to day experience and how it shapes us as human beings.



This also assumes that audiences enjoy being lectured on how to think, and that the filmmakers doing the lecturing are smarter than audiences, and talented enough to not the message subsume to story to the point of *patronizing the audience*, especially as so few filmmakers, (and especially the Oscar Nominated ones), seem unable to resist screaming to the audience "This is what you should be thinking!" (Couple that with the predictability of Oscar Bait Movies - they have their tropes and formulas - and you can see why audiences are indifferent).



I'd like to thank 'Crash' for teaching me Racism is Bad; 'Brokeback Mountain' for teaching me Homophobia is Bad; and 'Syriana' for teaching me Big Oil is Bad. (As, obviously, there is no possible way I could have ever figured that out for myself).



In this way, Prestige Pictures have *exactly the same patronizing view of the audience as Tentpole pictures*. Thank you 'Shrek', for teaching me Not Believing In Myself is Bad; 'Evan Almighty' for teaching me Not Spending Time With Your Kids is bad; and 'The Bad News Bears' for teaching me that Not Letting The Kid On The Ventilator In A Wheelchair Catch The Winning Ball For Our Sports Team is Bad.



If Life itself is the message, why does entertainment need to be anything more than an interesting story with engaging characters where we're trusted that we can figured out any underlying message for ourselves?



Anyone who uses movie as a basis on how to think deserves what they get.

"This paints everyone who doesn't share your taste in movies as uneducated plebs,"

You're new here, aren't you?

Legowombat makes a good point many of us have raised in some form or another here many times.

I think of it as, audiences are only evading movies about hard truths if you assume that movies like A Mighty Heart, In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, etc. actually contain any.

Interesting observations about the vast number (probably) of Americans who'll only go out to theaters to see advertised as 'happy pill' vibe flicks. I know most of my relatives feel just like Wells' Boston friend.
Unfortunately what is, is. Oh well.

It'd be interesting if someone on youtube did some mash-up trailers re-cut as 'happy pill' uplifting flicks of There Will Be Blood, No Country, Michael Clayton, Atonement, etc (if that would even be possible)

It would be pretty easy to do a happy "Shining" style mashup of TWBB, given the number of genuinely heartfelt scenes between Daniel and HW. Complete with "Solsbury Hill."

I don't think there's much point to this discussion because...

- The People's Choice Awards always feature movies that far more people have seen (most of which are complete shit), and yet the ratings for that show are nowhere close to the Academy Awards.

I'm just saying...

So, the Oscars rated poorly, huh? Good. Very good. Perhaps it's because times ARE indeed tough, and people don't want to watch these smug, overpaid, self-indulgent, pretentious twits engaging in their annual display of collective onanism.

collective onanism?

is that even possible?

"I think the movies that were most admired were insidery movie-movies in a lot of ways, to love No Country For Old Men you have to be the sort who smiles with delight when a crazy killer starts walking around in his socks-- or more to the point, when a director gives you a loving closeup of his toes in those socks during a tense scene. To love There Will Be Blood you have to be willing to spend 2-1/2 hours puzzling out tiny clues about a deeply dislikable character. These were not-- except for Juno and Once-- approachable movies; they were geek movies."

This makes me so angry I don't think I can form a coherent reply - I'd use Carol Kane's line from ANNIE HALL ("No, that was wonderful, I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype"), except that's a funny line, and I don't feel like laughing. So I like "non-approachable movies". All due respect, so the fuck what? Doesn't mean I'm "inside-baseball," just means that's what I like. Doesn't mean I don't like "feel-good" movies if they're done right, just means, IMHO, the "feel-good" movies being done right now range from mediocre to awful. They're so careful to airbrush any sense of reality out that any triumphant ending feels like a cheat. There may be "downbeat romanticism" in unhappy movies, as one person put it, but for the most part, the movies that strive to be art or challenging aren't accompanied by fake happy endings. Deal with it. Also deal with the fact that while I understand the appeal of happy fantasy when life sucks, some of us also want people who don't do the happy fantasy, but can articulate the way that we feel about our lives (if we think they suck) that makes us feel less alone.

Oh, and FTR, I loved ONCE and JUNO as well as TWBB and NCFOM.

Somebody needs to go watch Wild Hogs and unwind.

As a great intellectual once said: bite me.

You know what? I've had enough challenges and major events living my real life to not especially want to be challenged by art right now. People who say that other people should challenge themselves more with art usually want you to buy THEIR art, I've found.

And I already have a philosophy of life and stuff, thanks.

I'd rather spend my time with my family doing my own thing. Maybe I'll go see a movie once in a while, but it's no big.