data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/65988/659886dc5df8362af351235fb16736484366512d" alt=""
What is behind the fascination that the Academy and the Guilds have for The King's Speech? Before the Oscar nominations were announced on Tuesday, I was in genuine favor with Tom Hooper's film, and I appreciated it for the inspirational musings of a not necessarily original work. Then the nominations came out, and all that I could be thinking about was how it was unworthy. Twelve nominations is far more than anybody expected, and far more than it deserves. I could've pegged better supporting actresses this year than Helena Bonham Carter's performance. The cinematography is the film was occasionally so plainly straightforward that it a bit distracting. I haven't the slightest clue why it garnered a nod for sound mixing. As much as I love Alexandre Desplat's scores, his least impressive work this year, besides Tamara Drewe, was with The King's Speech.
Even the directing race seems like a bit of a stretch. If asking the overwhelming majority if Tom Hooper's direction defined the film, most would say no. It barely had an impact on how I felt, and certainly not as much as Colin Firth or Geoffrey Rush. I always expected that David Fincher would win Best Director for The Social Network, and now that's going to be a bit of a struggle. If you were to ask me who most deserved to win the category, I would say Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan. He's never quite astounded with his directorial work until now. Still, this is a fight between Hooper and Fincher, and I can't help but believe that the wrong person will win.
No comments:
Post a Comment