I read William Goldman’s first public comments on the awards season this year in Variety and just after, some nasty comments about him on a site with message boards that are endlessly amusing this time of year. And what hit me first about the response to some tough comments by Goldman was…
People prefer to be lied to.
It is more complex than that, but the punch line is that people prefer a lie they agree with to a truth that goes against what they believe.
In particular, Goldman brutalizes Martin Scorsese a bit for the second time in three years. But in the Gangs of New York debacle, Scorsese and his Oscar Svengali, Harvey Weinstein, had it coming. Moreover, there is no one who I know who works or closely covers the Oscars who knows, to this date, where the votes for Gangs’ 10 nominations came from, with a couple of exceptions (Daniel Day Lewis amongst them).
What Goldman, who has not seen The Aviator yet, jumps on this year is that critical hysteria has started and is expected to continue on that film, in spite of a pleasant, but hardly overwhelming response from most audiences in town. There are people who adore The Aviator. But there seem to be an equal number who despise it.
But Goldman’s core issue, even if he slams Scorsese a bit hard for me, is that the hysteria about getting Marty “his” Oscar would not be happening had he simply won the Oscar he most deserved 25 years ago, for Raging Bull. I am not as tough on later Scorsese as Goldman. I truly love Kundun and I see great work even in his failures, like Gangs. That said, Goldman is 100% correct - and I don’t think anyone without blinders on or a vested interest would suggest otherwise – in saying that Scorsese’s greatest work was 20 years ago.
I like a lot of The Aviator, but in so many ways, this is not amongst Scorsese’s best work as character studies go. You can’t get much darker than Scorsese got in Mean Streets and Raging Bull. You can’t get much more complex than GoodFellas, which travels roughly the same amount of time as The Aviator. But the work in those films was innovative and really brilliant. In The Aviator, he made a conventional film. It’s beautiful at times and truly exhilarating at others. But I can name 20 directors who could have delivered it as well if not better.
When I read Goldman writing about the word of mouth, “…The first hour is terrific. But Scorsese has never been at ease with story, and the rest of the film just does not measure up. You watch -- when the gushing starts, that decline will be buried,” I feel a little like I am having déjà vu. Just a couple of weeks ago, I wrote of Todd McCarthy’s review in Variety and how it accurately described a part of the film… and how it blatantly left out 40% or more of the film from the discussion. You can read the reader responses for yourself, but they ran from anger at me, to disbelief, to some in agreement. But it was really simple, however you feel about the film… it was consciously or unconsciously incomplete.
Goldman goes on to wonder if Million Dollar Baby is the big threat to The Aviator (it is), even though he has not seen that film either. Of course, as his bashers say, he has worked with Eastwood. They also rage that he is against The Aviator without having seen it.
But what I read there is what is a very real view in town… the Scorsese hysteria is different than, say, talk about Alexander Payne or Michael Mann. It’s not “great work… let’s celebrate,” but “let’s celebrate his career… the work here is good enough not be embarrassing because damn, he earned it over his career.” This nomination was being assumed long before anyone saw the film... and so few people have seen it as of now, critical mass is building still.
It is, of course, possible to believe that The Aviator is better directorial work than Sideways or Collateral or Million Dollar Baby. But the haze of the Oscars is quite often more about the things around the work than the work itself. I look forward to reading Goldman on the F9/11 campaign effort
But back to the original thought… people like to be lied to.
How many journalists and critics have I read this season who are taking positions that are not just about the films involved. There is one major columnist who ripped into The Phantom of The Opera after refusing to attend one of a number of screenings to which they were offered access. No disclosure in the column. Others hated this film or loved that film and then tout or tear those titles as though there was industry “buzz.” (I have been accused of this at times and take great offense at the notion, since I work endlessly to avoid this.) You may disagree… you may disagree to the point of rage... with Goldman’s take here. But you have to admit, it’s honest. His cards are on the table.
And with little bitterness at all, he points out that his favorite film, The Motorcycle Diaries, is sure to miss the boat. Another bit of truth.
Oscarwatch's "William Goldman, can't we just strangle the man" chat board
Recent Comments