And the Oscar goes to…

I had a burger in my left hand, a bottled cider in the right, my jeans weren’t too tight and the cinema was practically empty. I was as ready as they come. My friend and I shared an excited smile as the introductory credits ran and nestled further into our back-row seats. The Oscar-winning picture of 2015 had begun and I was ready to be proven wrong of my original feelings towards this golden statue going to the wrong film. Unfortunately, it didn’t quite play out like that.

Directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu, Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is a well-crafted mockery of the hyped realities of the Hollywood film industry and the New York theatre scene. It is, essentially, a story about celebrities desperate in their attempts to remain relevant, significant and profound. The film follows Riggan Thomson, a washed up, one-time action hero (known as Birdman) attempting to re-establish himself seriously and professionally by writing, directing, co-producing and starring in his adaption of a Carver play. Ironically, the role was taken on by Michael Keaton, the former Batman who, to say the least, hasn’t had the most eclectic or impressive resume since denying a part in the third instalment of the blockbuster series. Other notable names include Edward Norton, Zach Galifianakis, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan and Andrea Riseborough. Norton’s character, Mike, is an overwhelmingly dedicated theatre performer who is more focused on everyone’s expression of truth whilst performing than anything else – this is the audience’s major comedic relief throughout, amid the surprising darkness the film embraced. Now, this concept was intriguing and admirable however, the significant questions proposed were only met with conventional answers – the film never truly gives audiences solid conclusions and never really evokes that deep emotion, connection and raw intensity that I believe all Oscar Best Pictures should thrive on. Birdman just simply doesn’t take flight.

What the film did deserve was the cinematography and directing nod. Cinematography-wise, Emmanuel Lubezki (also the Oscar winner last year for Gravity) truly enhances the concept of long takes. If you watch closely, the entire film gives the illusion of being filmed completely in one take. As a film student, this auteristic element was visually orgasmic – the camera and editing skills that contributed to this process and final product are truly incredible. Further, the director’s decisions on certain angles, movements and shot types (many close ups, pans as transitions and obscure angles) confidently enhanced the edgy, enigmatic tone of the film which was continuously improved through the tense drum beat exploited throughout. But even in conjunction with these cinematographic, sound, editing and directing positives – the humanity, the heart and the message of this film was just not clear or hard-hitting enough to be crowned Best Picture.

So, if not Birdman… who should have taken home the golden honour this year?

Written and directed by Richard Linklater, Boyhood is a 12-year epic film that tackles, in the most simplistic of summaries, boyhood. With newcomer Ellar Coltrane as Mason and esteemed Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke as his struggling single mother and preoccupied, eccentric father, respectively, Linklater has written and directed characters you already know and will automatically empathise with and attach to. It doesn’t just have a scene for each year documenting one significant stepping stone in everyone’s childhood or adolescence, it captivates audiences through its “little moments”. It shows the father/son camping trip, the average car rides to school, dinner conversations and haircuts among the graduation, the first loves and the family break-ups. This was one of those films that had you laughing and crying, hoping and reminiscing, loving and hating, understanding and questioning from scene to scene. Boyhood was the epitome of emotionally engaging – from the moment I sat down in that cinema seat til the end credits rolled, I was there, I was with this boy on his journey. That is what cinema should be. That is what an Oscar winning Best Picture should be – one that truly captures the discourse of humanity.

Appallingly, Boyhood was nominated for six Oscars and only walked away holding one of the golden statues (the much deserving Patricia Arquette snatched Best Supporting Actress).

This hatches an interesting debate over the process of the Academy, who are crucial in the decisions on what films will make cinematic history and which will be swept under the rug. Looking at the past five years of winners, each year besides 2013 has had the Best Picture’s director also be awarded Best Director (Gravity (2014), The Artist (2012), The Kings Speech (2011), The Hurt Locker (2010)). 2015 has followed in these footsteps with Birdman snatching up the Oscar for both also. The Oscars has become more about who tripped up the stairs last year and the quality of the hosts’ jokes – which, on the sly, was zero for both this year – than celebrating a broad range of excellent and deserving cinema. For example, films and celebrities that weren’t nominated that were definitely commendable include Ava DuVernay for Selma, Gillian Flynn for Gone Girl, where was Under The Skin, where was Angelina Jolie and the entire cohort of Unbroken? This program delivers expectations, and when I say that I mean, it literally dishes out the favourites for the year of the main six motion pictures chosen and then may have one oddball contender that only 25% of the audience are aware of.

Like Birdman, the Oscars hypes utterly unoriginal and familiar drama; it is a glorified reality that is intended to be profound in its decisions and delivery but never really taps into its true and intended meaning. And I mean, Leonardo DiCaprio still doesn’t have an Oscar. If that isn’t enough of an encouragement for wanting to riot the Academy’s methods, than I don’t know what is.