Oscar Matters: Sandra Bullock vs. Meryl Streep

I never thought I would say this, but Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side) is giving Meryl Streep (Julia & Julia and 15 other Oscar nominations) a run for her money in this year's best actress race. When I saw trailers for The Blind Side I rolled my eyes and yawned. I thought nothing could get me interested in seeing what was clearly going to be an overly sentimental sport-as-metaphor cliché ridden film. On the other hand, 10 seconds into the trailer for Julia & Julia I was psyched to see the movie. My dream girl, Amy Adams, and acting legend Meryl Streep team up in a movie about Julie Child? Sign me up. In hindsight I was duped by the conniving marketing teams of both films but ultimately saved by the Academy's expanded best picture category (which I thought I hated).

First, the ad team for Julia & Julia promised two great stories for the price of one, but they didn't mention the fact that one story was of unequal and lesser value than the other. While the story of Julia Child living with her husband in Paris and her decision to learn the art of French cooking is funny and touching, the story of Julia Powell writing a blog based on Julie Child's famous cookbook is a failed attempt to equate an insignificant woman with the great woman on whose coat tails she rode. It was also tough to watch my future lover Amy Adams struggle with trying to make this frustrating character likable.

Second, the ad team for The Blind Side refused to target this movie at me. They promised me Sandra Bullock, who has made a string of hit or miss movies over the last twenty years, in a wholesome family drama where some white family in the south adopts a black kid who plays football. Totally implausible. Well, it turns out, that the movie is really a character study of affluent southern white Christians confronted with an opportunity to save the life a young black man. The movie takes a balanced look at two communities that are prejudiced against each other and it goes on to show the human ties that bind those two communities together. Sandra Bullock is also a revelation. She plays Leigh Anne Touhy with bitting authenticity and heartfelt compassion which must mean her talent has been tragically wasted on the glib roles of all those low-stakes rom-coms she's been in.

At the end of the day, Sandra Bullock's performance had to be spot on perfect for The Blind Side to work and there is no doubt she nailed it. On the other hand Meryl Streep's outstanding performance could not salvage the mess that was Julia & Julia. Meryl was by far the best part of the movie, as she often is, but I'm of the school that says, the movie needs to be great to receive any Oscars. Sandra Bullock set The Blind Side up to be great and she deserves the Oscar. Oh gods of the Oscars, forgive me.

Movie Matters: 2010 Oscars: And the Nominees are Leaving Something to be Desired

Watch live streaming video from academyawards at livestream.com

As a loyal EM reader you know that this blog has a general respect for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science. Their annual awards, commonly known as the Oscars, give the movies the requisite heft to be considered high art. But the announcement of the 2010 nominees irritated me.

First problem, ten best picture nominees. Of course this is not a new phenomenon, but its desperate. Back in the 30's nominating this many films was standard, but back then the Oscars where a more blatant attempt to sell movie tickets. As the awards evolved over the decades it appeared that they were more concerned with honoring a worthy few and were content to let extremely talented artists languish Oscar-free for an entire career (See, Peter O'Toole). They didn't seem to care if they honored movies that no one saw or will ever see (The English Patient). Raising the number of best picture nominees is a shameless attempt to raise Oscar night ratings at the expense of diminishing the prestige of the award. Also, with such a large field the picture that wins theoretically only needs 11% of the vote. Should a picture with that little support be etched in the pages of history forever?

Second problem, Avatar. With nine nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director, the Academy is making a bold statement that 2009 was the year of Avatar. I concede that the film grossed over $2 billion, which is good for the industry, and the visual effects rose to level of OMG, but those facts don't make up for the stale plot and stilted dialog. The beauty of film is that it's a collaborative art form but the draw back of that is if there is one weak link the entire production suffers. A best picture nominee should shine from every aspect of the movie making process and Avatar falls short in too many places. Just because people went to see the movie, doesn't mean it's great (See, Spider-Man 3).


Third problem, Star Trek. Science fiction is usually woefully snubbed at the Oscars, but this year the Academy had two science fiction blockbusters that it could honor, and as the knight in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade said they, "choose poorly." Save for visual affects (and that's debatable) Star Trek outshines Avatar in every metric. The story is more compelling, the characters are more fully developed, the stakes of the story are much higher and the movie is just plain fun. If the Academy insists on nominating ten pictures they can't miss the one movie that brought nerds and jocks together in 2009.


Final problem, repeat nominees. I get it. Meryl Streep is the greatest ever and the Coen Brothers are clever. But do we need to be reminded of these facts every year? I look to the Oscar nominations as a chance to see what great performances I might have missed over the last year because there were too many ads for Night at the Museum 2. Of course I'm going to go see Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, and George Clooney. Academy, please, tell me something I don't know.


This is the first of many posts about the 2010 Oscars. Stay tuned. And don't forget to follow @EnterMatter on Twitter for the latest updates.