In a time when you can read endless film reviews with the click of a mouse, do we really need the Academy to tell us what was the best of the year? After 83 years, are the Oscars really necessary? Every morning after the Oscars there are inevitably scores of naysayers claiming that the awards are contrived and dumb. Yes, the Academy is often predictable in who they choose, and yes, they constantly make choices that pander to audiences (10 Best Picture nominees? Really?) But despite all its flaws, I still believe in the Oscars.
Let’s ignore the obviously awkward attempts to “appeal to a younger demographic” — James Franco’s presence despite seeming stoned, the auto-tuned Harry Potter/Twilight/etc. mash-up and the children’s choir at the end. Russell Brand’s team-up with Helen Mirren was actually very funny, as was everything Sandra Bullock said (Jeff, dude. Dude.) And for the rest of my life I will remember the creepiness yet basically the miracle of the Bob Hope hologram.
Beyond the highlights of the ceremony, there are the awards themselves. The big battle this year seemed to be “The King’s Speech” against “The Social Network.” “Inception” was a lock for the technical awards, and with Nolan’s snub for Director there were really only two contenders. At the end of the night, “The Social Network” won three while “The King’s Speech” walked away with four, including the big wins of Best Director, Leading Actor and Picture. It may not have been as big a battle as last year’s “Avatar” vs. “The Hurt Locker,” but the ramifications are just as great.
The average college student seemed convinced, or at least hopeful, that “The Social Network” would win. To our generation, “The Social Network” is the great adventure, the touchstone of the Internet Age. The story of a smart-ass kid playing his way to the top, of a nerd sticking it to the jocks to the tune of billions, is infinitely appealing to the self-obsessed “tweeters” of today. Aaron Sorkin deservedly won for his clever script that made scenes of dialogue feel full of action, and the young male-heavy ensemble was pitch perfect. But as good as the movie was, it was never going to get the ultimate win from the Academy. The elder generations can surely agree that David Fincher’s latest film was deserving of nomination, but it could never speak to them like it does to us. This was the story of the Facebook-loving youth, not their film snob grandparents.
And then there is “The King’s Speech.” At first glance, it’s typical Oscar bait. It’s British, a period piece and features Academy-loved Colin Firth. I knew it was a contender after seeing it with my dad and grandparents, who just ate it up. Some may look at the film as a sign that the Academy is old, outdated and unnecessary. I see it as a very different kind of sign. From a technical standpoint, “The King’s Speech” was beautifully shot, the sound was powerful and the acting was some of the best of the year. The script, a winner for Best Original, was poignant while still laugh-out-loud funny, the sort of clever and subtle British wit that audiences around the world can enjoy. But more importantly, as was the case with “Slumdog Millionaire,” the heart of the film is key. “The Social Network” is about a divisive young man alienating himself from his friends. “The King’s Speech” is about a man facing his fears and putting his duty first, a man overcoming his obstacles with the help of a true friend in order to be the man his country needs him to be at one of its lowest moments. Audiences left “The Social Network” in awe of the Zuckerberg story and more than likely a little self-conscious of their Facebook use. They left “The King’s Speech,” however, moved by the story, even at times to the point of tears. That is why “The King’s Speech” deserved to win: it was, from the script to the screen to the hearts of all of its viewers, the Best Picture.
