Nikita Mikhalkov and Maria Shukshina caused a wave of controversy, saying that Russian cinema does not need an Oscar, as expected.
It should be noted here that Mikhalkov himself received an Oscar and, in my opinion, his most outstanding film. Not for the ingenious early cinema – “Five Evenings”, “Unfinished Piece for Mechanical Piano”, “Among Strangers”, “Burnt by the Sun”, which is obviously a picture taken for export, not for “Slave of Love”. Of course, I do not deny in the slightest the directorial virtues of Mikhalkov, I write without a shadow of irony.
So Nikita Sergeevich knows what he is talking about. And the West knows the price of the premium. The obvious question is: How does this award actually relate to the talent and greatness of the directors?
The question is not the easiest.
Fellini, the great Frenchman of the new wave, after receiving awards by Bertolucci. “Oscar” was marked by truly innovators – not only Europeans, but also Americans who broke away from Hollywood molds.
I will make a small lyrical excerpt here: In our country, people who are far from film criticism are very fond of putting an identity mark between American cinema and Hollywood. And to no avail, these are different things.
Hollywood is an international phenomenon. Roughly speaking, it is a film designed for the widest audience, shot according to certain patterns, and does not require much mental effort from the viewer. You all know the Hollywood tricks: the hero in the jungle, alone at home, in an uncomfortable atmosphere. Even my Spaniard understands that it is necessary to escape, but he takes a flashlight and goes into the dark basement, annoying music sounds …
American auteur cinema can be truly wonderful, innovative and extraordinary to an unprepared audience.
Woody Allen, Milos Foreman, David Lynch, and many more have all received Oscars (but Allen likes to skip presentation). We can easily say that once “Oscar” was really based on the artistic level of the works.
But in my opinion, this celebration of life ended a few decades ago. Today, I think “Oscar” is most reminiscent of “Eurovision” with a small change. If Eurovision stands on two feet on the political situation, then Oscar has a different problem and it’s not some kind of geopolitical conspiracy.
I will not say, more precisely, publisher and film critic, than the great Alexander Alexandrovich Timofeevsky, so I will quote his statement word for word.
“Bad taste is called this conspiracy. “Oscar” – x … I award in general, as prestigious as x … I. Exceptions are random and rare. And no conjuncture, no politics can prevail over the academics who received the number. The herd rushes in one direction or the other and never reflects, it has no such habit. Russian film scholars like both Nika and Orel vote equally irresponsibly, I tell you as an experienced academic, I’ve been voting for twenty years and it’s almost always some kind of bullshit. Only the jury has a meaningful selection, there are seven to ten people, there are opinion leaders, they argue, they persuade, they plot, they slam doors. And here – the silence and the clatter of hooves running in it: back and forth. Even “Nika” with “Eagle”, I would say, is better, because we have Churov in our blood, and academics will be corrected by counting them right – no, but still someone’s choice. Honestly, they say everyone at the Oscar is perfect innocence.”
There is nothing to add here.
My favorite director Andrei Arsenievich Tarkovsky did not have an Oscar. But Zvyagintsev was nominated for an Oscar, in my opinion, the author of absolutely opportunistic works and an epigon of the same Tarkovsky.
What is he saying? Yes nothing. And the most important thing you need to know about this award.
The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the editors’ position.