The "Shame"-less Oscars

Context: So, I've seen many of the Oscar Nominated films this year, and the two that stuck out to me the most didn't even get nominated. I'm speaking of course of Drive and Shame. I saw the former in the fall, and the latter last week; both in the local "art" cinema here in Toulouse, called "Utopia," and for a cinéaste like myself, that is exactly what this theater is like. If you didn't know where it was, you would miss it. It is on a narrow down-town street, typical to many French cities. There is no big neon sign, just a small, green chalk-board posted on the glass doors that displays the day's show-times. There is not a large crowd of teens laughing and running around, just a few older hipster-types sprinkled calmly outside the door smoking. Inside, it is a grand foyer, or at least grand for a cinema of its small stature. The ticket booth is perched at the top of a small set of stairs, and each of the three screens are located in rooms covered to the walls with plush, red-velvet cloth. Each screening was with a packed house, only appropriate for the two excellent films that I saw.

As it seems to manage each year, the Academy Awards does not fail to disappoint with its nominations, and this year they take no Shame in it either. That’s right; I’m referring to the sophomore effort by English director, Steve McQueen who failed to garner any attention with his film about sex-addiction, aside from its NC-17 rating. Unfortunately, he is in good company this year with the likes of Nicolas Winding Refn and the rest of the cast of Drive, who were all snubbed for contention for that bald, gold guy. Both directors and films make a great case for why they should have been nominated and why they should be very upset that they got snubbed.

The first reason the Oscars got the nods wrong again this year: Michael Fassbender and Ryan Gosling. Both in roles as the strong silent type, they acted with near perfection and each with their own style. Gosling in this case probably getting snubbed because he is too good looking; he is this generation’s Brad Pitt. He will be nominated a lot in the future, but his acting ability will be highly overlooked (like that of Pitt) because he has been associated with that “teen heartthrob” crowd. Fassbender suffers from, well, being foreign. He is a quickly rising star but largely unknown to many Americans, which works to his disadvantage this year after starring in a highly censored film (censored in the sense that it suffered under the weight of the NC-17 rating, which essentially limits who can see the film.)

Michael Fassbender in Shame

What puts the salt in the wound of these snubs is the list of Best-Actor nominations. There are Hollywood mainstays but also some underdogs too. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and (more recently a mainstay) Gary Oldman, all of which are great actors in their own right, are most likely nominated because of their Hollywood clout. Clooney is the most deserving of the nod, and maybe even the Oscar, with his incredibly poignant performance in The Descendants. Pitt is more a mainstay snub, snub for a win that is, but his portrayal as Billy Beane, although wonderful, is far from his best performance, let alone his best this year (see his performance in The Tree of Life.) Then there is Oldman, who like Pitt, continually takes on challenging and different roles, and rather, he deserves the statuette more for his body of work. The problem here however is that these three represent the typical choices of the Academy; they have the “big name” advantage going for them. Gosling and Fassbender would be more fitting in the spots occupied by Pitt and Oldman. It is good however, to see the little-known (to American audiences) Damián Bichir and Jean Dujardin nominated. Although I think Dujardin is mostly riding off the popularity of The Artist.

Ryan Gosling in Drive

Another reason that the Oscars got it wrong: Carey Mulligan. This is an unfortunate one because she co-starred in both Drive and Shame, which probably hurt in splitting the nominations for her. Both performances were of equally high quality, and each character she portrayed was very different. If anything, this contrast in character types, or even the fact that she simply picks interesting, complex roles, should have gotten her a nomination. Her contemporary, Jessica Chastain, managed to get the nod after starring, less notably in my opinion, in The Tree of Life and The Help, the later being the performance of lesser quality but of more popularity to audiences. This is a defect that the Academy suffers from each year. They attempt to compensate for popular films (or in Meryl Streep’s case, popular actresses) and overlook truly great performances, like both by Carey Mulligan.

Carey Mulligan in Shame

Carey Mulligan in Drive

Probably the toughest, but most justified argument to be made for both Drive and Shame is in respects to the directors and the films in general, (these being the first films that I personally have seen from either director.) Making nominations judged heavily on past work should not be practiced in the spirit of finding the current year’s best films, performances, etc. However, Winding Refn and McQueen are two of the most original and daring filmmakers currently working. In Winding Refn’s case, (having only heard about his affinity for violence in his films,) it seems that he treats the subject appropriately. Drive works as a sort of modern western with Gosling as the man of mystery à la Brad Pitt/John Wayne. He is known only in the credits as the Driver. This film is a story about how he falls in love with and sacrifices everything for Irene (played by Mulligan) and her son. This is part of the film is accompanied by the one part of the film that didn’t get a snub, the sound editing, and the entrancing soundtrack. The violence in this film is not seen until around halfway through and is really shocking, as it should be. Violence should be treated as something that is gruesome, it should make you twinge, and it shouldn’t be treated as “cool.” The contrast between the love story and the violence is the power of this film.

Ryan Gosling (Left) and Nicolas Winding Refn (Right)

In the case of McQueen, he suffers from this being his sophomore effort and his exposure (or ironically lack thereof) to the public. How could a film be more daring in Hollywood than with an NC-17 rating? However, this rating does not do Shame justice. Although a very sexually explicit film that dives deep into the psyche of a sex addict with possibly deeper incestual issues, Shame is a perfectly written and constructed film. It borders on Hitchcockian structure, where every part of the film, not just the writing or the acting (for example,) but also the editing and art-design are essential to what the film is trying to portray. It is probably the most perfect, all-round, film of the year, where every aspect is essential and should not be overlooked. McQueen is very conscious of every part of his film.

Michael Fassbender (Left) and Steve McQueen (Right)

Although a complete analysis can be made of Shame, uncovering all of its intricacies, (and in fact, I have written one,) it is important to note what the Academy has actually nominated instead of Shame, and also Drive. In the Best-Directing category, the Academy got it mostly right, although Scorsese I think got a free pass this year, and a McQueen nomination would have been more justified. And Best Picture, well, one would think with all the possible nominations (ten , but they only nominated 9?!) that the Academy could include a film like Drive or Shame, but apparently they were very undeserving. It was a stronger year than most people think; it is just a shame that people have overlooked the truly great films of the year. (But, what’s new.)