Beyond the aesthetic values (not to say “likes”), the Oscars, which will be awarded on March 12, continue to mark at least one core, a place where various discussions are generated, disguised as a hooligan sense or unintelligible by such and such a movie On our side, from the “second, France”, Argentina, 1985 competes for Best Argentine Film. The interesting thing about the film that can be seen today on Prime Video and directed by Santiago Miter is its journey: how from Venice it was building a path that has led it to win the Golden Globe, be nominated for the Bafta and be part of this installment Hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. That path is a strategy – all the films that arrived here have it – and in the case of Argentina, 1985 is remarkable in its way of release, because it speaks of how the big cinemas treated the film. On the one hand, an understandable attitude, because the big cinemas required a larger window of exclusivity, and on the other hand, petty, a classic of the big corporations that, sure, are the ones that are at risk but at the same time, today, are the theaters that did not give an Argentine film that was nominated for an Oscar, and that came thanks to its popular instincts, well-made industrial cinema. There is something to remember and measure there: if cinema is a business, which is something we all understand, what does it say about the presence of the great exhibitors that it has not been possible to generate a communion between a project, Argentina, 1985, and the fight for exclusivity (again, understandable, but also a horizon that will not have so much life in the short term)?
Home Sweet Home. So, in the same way that seeing the tour of Argentina, 1985 and his local road says something about distribution and its crisis in motion, it talks about the identity crisis of Hollywood, desperate to shake off all that has been for decades at the time for diversity and certain abuses of power. And, of course, the eternal ratings problem, which literally rose thanks to Will Smith’s slap in the face and how everyone ran out to watch TV after the event (but, historically, the Oscars have been going down and down in ratings). So, the award that was born, and continues to be, an excuse not only to celebrate but also to generate more viewings, more life, less extinction (if that were possible) for the giant modes of the industry. For this reason, the celebration of the most nominated film, and possible winner, All the Time Everywhere and its 11 shortlists imply something that almost never happened: the arrival of an independent hit to the “top”, with nominations for its directors, actors and even as Best Picture. Does it imply a revolution, a paradigm shift, or nothing at all? That’s where the questions appear, and they mix. And a lot. On the one hand, All Quiet Front, a film that had a large presence on Netflix globally, achieving a long stay among the most watched worldwide, is nominated for 9 awards (including the stupid Best Picture + Best combo). Foreign Film, which many believe serves as the Argentine shortlist on a platter, 1985). But in its correct, industrial ways, it is easier to associate the German war film with old Oscar ways, which are still there, and is that all bad? Is the “Oscar movie” a tic that should already go? There the dilemma appears again, but also thinking in terms of exhibition and impact.
For example, Everyone everywhere everywhere impresses with their presence more for being “one of kicks” than anything else. Of course it is more, and it is also that (which is a lot). But there is something of the fullness of the genre, of the massive entertainment that still continues to appeal to the darkness, to the poorly processed density when at the Oscars. There are complaints about the absence of Nope, Jordan Peele’s heartfelt and savage experiment, and also about the presence of popular films like Avatar – The Way of Water or, even, the German film. Even Top Gun: Maverick arrives focused but without a chance, but isn’t it a film that unites universes from the belief in physical cinema and the idea of a star that can do anything? Of course, the cinema can be many things, or all, and that is why it is a place like few others. The absence of terror is notable, for example, considering that it is really the most independent and ferocious genre of the moment (in guarangadas and in masterpieces by number of premieres). The 2023 Oscars are still more of the same: something we love to hate and love, but they make us talk about cinema.
everything you need to know
The Oscars are delivered on March 12. A far cry from last year, which saw Apple TV+ win its first Best Picture award and Netflix nab a crucial 27 nominations, this year A24’s Everything Everywhere at the Same Time snagged the most nominations: 11 in all. , and that includes Michelle Yeoh, Ke Huy Quan and the film for Best Film. It’s a strange case: it was released in March, long before “Oscar season”, and it has, for example, made Yeoh the first Asian actress to be nominated for Best Actress. In a year where only the great films, nominated here, Avatar and Top Gun rank among the most viewed (everything else has suffered and a lot and little nothing has generated nominations for other awards), films like Elvis, with 8 nominations, or The Banshees of Inisherin, have barely caught the audience’s attention. But the truth is that it is one of the most diverse awards ceremonies to date: we must consider that the academy has 10,000 members, and that it has been part of the problem when it comes to diversity, the greatest exponent of which was the disaster that occurred It was given in an institution like the Golden Globes. The 95th edition seeks to be the most current, the one that knows how to speak to its public (which it does not know).
You may also like
