The Arizona Republic critiques the Oscars

We’re interested in hearing Bill Goodykootz, the Arizona Republic’s smart and hardworking film critic, give his perspective on the Oscars. Here he is, talking about The Hurt Locker showing in general and the moving and historic wins of Christoph Waltz and Mo’Nique in particular:

It […] meant that two actors no one dreamed would be holding Oscars during last year’s show were among the winners. And, in the end, no matter what the show is like, how much producers talk about reinventing the broadcast, how many ways they try to make it different, that’s the only change that really matters.

Hard to argue with that. The Oscars continue to evolve. You can make the argument that the last few years have seen the top nominee slates grow ever-more daring and open-minded, culminating in the last three years, in which the top awards went to, arguably, the most adventurous films of their respective years. (No Country, Slumdog and now Hurt Locker.)

Well, the Republic’s editorial page would disagree.

Yes, the Arizona Republic’s editorial page discussed the Oscars this a.m.

The page was quite peeved. You’re not going to be able to guess about what:

[Y]ou would think one would have shined a light on the fact that poor, heroic Farrah Fawcett was not included in the annual memorial of deceased movie people.

And, while we’re at it: What of Bea Arthur? And Ed McMahon? Despite mostly TV and live theater legacies, all three have film credits.

Bea Arthur and Ed McMahon!

You kind of get the feeling Arizona Republic editorial writers sit around at night and watch a lot of infomercials.

Bill Goodykoontz on the disappearing critic's screening

The Republic’s film critic notes that the movie studios are showing fewer and fewer movies to critics for review:

I’m starting to feel like Charlie Brown. I never get invited to anything.

OK, that’s an exaggeration.

But this much is true: Of the three major releases that open Friday, Sept. 11, today none was available for review. I watched a fourth film, “Lorna’s Silence,” on DVD.

The three films are Sorority Row, a slasher pic; Whiteout, a thriller with Kate Beckinsale set in Antarctica; and I Can Do Bad All By Myself, the latest bit of sentimentality from Tyler Perry.

Slasher films make money whether they are good or bad, and Perry presumably doesn’t care or doesn’t need to care what white critics say about his black films.

Whiteout is more of a puzzle; locally, it was screened on a Wednesday night, which is too late to make the Republic’s deadlines. That strategically leaves local word-of-mouth to the screening audience and to less-serious local critics. Beckinsale, as Goodykoontz notes, is a fairly respectable actress, but in the end even respectable actresses end up in bad films, and the studio was trying to give the thing whatever protection from critics it could.

Manohla Dargis in the NYT, for example, reviewed it today. Her verdict? “[A] perfunctory, by-the-numbers approach to the story and its characters.” And she ended with this kiss-off:

And shouldn’t there be penguins? I thought every movie about Antarctica had to have penguins. Has someone done market research proving otherwise? Is the whole penguin thing over? Or maybe the penguins read the script and told their agents to pass. Smart birds.

Goodykoontz’s is a good reminder, though, that the movie studios, like the record companies, while busily marketing themselves in public as friends of consumers and fans, often work behind the scenes in ways to screw over their customers—and in this case their news sources.