Controversies abound

In the blink of an eye, 2011 was about to enter March. With the conclusion of the 83rd Academy Awards ceremony, the whirlwind of Hollywood in 2010 was finally coming to an end. The nearly four-month-long award season was settling down, like a dormant behemoth entering hibernation, awaiting reawakening at the year's end.

This so-called award season meant there were winners and losers, joy for some and disappointment for others.

"The King's Speech" and "The Social Network" engaged in a fierce rivalry, with "The King's Speech" ultimately emerging victorious. The film secured four heavyweight Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay. On the other hand, "The Social Network" had its triumph in Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, and Best Film Editing.

The acting awards held no surprises, with Colin Firth and Natalie Portman reigning as king and queen. Christian Bale from "The Fighter" and Melissa Leo secured supporting Oscars with dominance. Beyond that, in the technical categories, "Inception" emerged as the biggest winner, claiming four awards for Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography, and Best Visual Effects, tying with "The King's Speech" for the most trophies that night.

In addition, the highly acclaimed "The Kids Are All Right", "127 Hours", and the strong comeback of "The Fighter" after the nominations announcement, as well as the representatives of independent cinema, "Winter's Bone" and "Buried", all left empty-handed.

Such award results sparked a flurry of criticism from the media, especially regarding the choice for Best Director.

Hollywood Reporter ruthlessly stated, "This is the most lackluster Best Director in Oscar history," sparing no face for Tom Hooper, directly making him the target for satire and criticism. It wasn't that "The King's Speech" was lacking in excellence, but because there were more deserving candidates this year.

In the 83-year journey of the Oscars, controversies had arisen quite frequently, particularly in the Best Picture category. But this wasn't surprising, as Best Picture encompassed overall quality, the right timing, and the right elements.

"Chicago" triumphed over "The Pianist" due to the outbreak of the Iraq War in early 2003. Instead of heavy reflection, people needed soothing songs and dances.

"Crash" defeated "Brokeback Mountain" because, at the time, gay-themed films still struggled against conservative forces, while racial issues easily took the upper hand.

"Forrest Gump" bested "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Pulp Fiction" because the movie reflected the ultimate truth of the American spirit and the American dream. After two years of racial riots, the Gulf War, and the financial crisis, the US needed such dreams.

Thus, throughout history, controversies about Best Picture were common, each person had their own choice for Best Picture, and the Academy's choice might not always be right, but it was reflective of the times. Even if historical "errors" like "Shakespeare in Love" defeating "Saving Private Ryan" occurred, people also witnessed the dazzling entrance of Academy public relations.

However, relatively speaking, controversies over the Best Director position were quite rare.

Even in moments where Stanley Kubrick lost to Milos Forman or Alfred Hitchcock lost to John Ford, people could only sigh and say, "Timing and fate," feeling regretful yet respecting the outcome.

Because the Best Director award is a personal honor, the competition revolves around individual abilities, showcasing the pinnacle of individual skills. Factors such as politics, current events, and historical circumstances are minimized to the lowest degree, leaving only art to define the heroes. Art cannot be judged as winners or losers, but there is only one little golden statue, destined for only one person to win. This is the difference between art and awards ceremonies.

In this year's competition, David Fincher could be considered a standout.

"The Social Network" might not be likable in itself, due to being too contemporary, too sharp and incisive, too acerbic and cutting, and too genuinely dark. For the conservative Academy, uttering the words "I love it" wouldn't be easy. But no one can deny David Fincher's excellence.

As a director, David displayed a powerful personal style—sharp yet clean, profound yet weighty, brutal yet wise. Every detail of the entire film emanated David's strong temperament, leaving people amazed and applauding. Moreover, David's merits were not to be underestimated. His outstanding works like "Seven", "Fight Club", and "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" had already gained recognition from both time and the public. "The Social Network" fully met the qualifications for David's first little golden statue.

Forget about Tom Hooper—throughout the entire award season, there was almost no director who could compete with David. He swept the Golden Globe Awards, the BAFTA Awards, the National Board of Review Awards, the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, the New York Film Critics Circle Awards, the Boston Society of Film Critics Awards, and the Chicago Film Critics Association Awards...

In short, nearly all of the heavyweight indicators were included. Compared to Colin Firth's Best Actor, the Best Director award was the most certain of the entire award season.

However, after the Golden Globe Awards, the situation took a sharp turn downward. With the Weinstein brothers' operations, Tom's presence began to appear at major promotional events. On the other hand, negative news about "The Social Network" spread far and wide, showcasing the Academy's public relations skills to the extreme. Then, a surprise emerged from the American Directors Guild Awards, with Tom surpassing David. Following that, the Oscars produced another upset, with Tom's forceful ascension.

This wasn't a victory of strength but a victory of public relations. A typical Weinstein pattern. Following the victory of "Shakespeare in Love" over "Saving Private Ryan", the Weinstein brothers once again penned a tale of public relations miracles. This wasn't a moment to celebrate, but one that provoked anger, sadness, and disappointment.

Tom Hooper surpassing David Fincher, "The King's Speech" overwhelming "The Social Network", was not just a victory of public relations, but also another victory for the Academy's conservative power.

Once again.

Firstly, after "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" won the Oscar for Best Picture, in the following seven years, only two commercially successful films were nominated for the Best Picture Oscar: "Avatar" last year and "Inception" this year. Last year, despite James Cameron's immense momentum, he was toppled by "The Hurt Locker". This year, Christopher Nolan was cruelly overlooked, failing to even receive a nomination for Best Director.

Secondly, since 2008, after the two dark independent films "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will Be Blood" shone during the entire award season, the Academy has made conservative choices for three consecutive years. This time, they abandoned the innovative and bold "The Social Network", which moved with the times, and instead chose the stable, artisanal, and nostalgic "The King's Speech".

As the Oscars, which prided themselves on continually pursuing a balance between commerce and art, lost their commercial dominance and daring spirit, they also lost their artistic breakthroughs and focus. The conservative forces were losing their spirit of innovation, becoming increasingly decadent, utilitarian, arrogant, and arrogant.

There was a time when works like "Thelma & Louise", "Sunset Boulevard", "Midnight Cowboy", "Pulp Fiction", "A Clockwork Orange", and "2001: A Space Odyssey" could shine at the Oscars. But now, it's the Academy-style works like "The King's Speech" that are in the limelight.

In fact, this kind of result was foreseen before the awards ceremony began. In the latter half of the award season, "The King's Speech" gained overwhelming momentum and was nearly unstoppable. When the list of winners was announced, people weren't surprised. Yet, this lack of surprise only served to further prove the Academy's conservatism and stubbornness.

Oscar awards are becoming "predictable," turning opportunists like the Weinstein brothers into "experts", as they stir up the film industry with their merchant-like identity. "The King's Speech" is an example, and Natalie Portman is another. These are typical public relations victories lacking surprise and magic, causing the Oscars to lose their charm.

It was truly disappointing.

As an authoritative media outlet in Hollywood, one only needs to glance at the sharp remarks of Hollywood Reporter to glimpse the trend of professional opinions. Tom Hooper was merely a scapegoat under their cannons. What's truly being alluded to is the deep-seated complexity behind the industry.

Moreover, seasoned professional media outlets like Variety, The New York Times, The Village Voice, and The New Yorker all expressed similar viewpoints, delivering severe criticisms to the Academy. The award ceremony might have ended, but the uproar was just beginning.

Year after year, day after day, just like the Oscars, the Golden Globe Awards, and the Grammy Awards, major award ceremonies are facing more and more challenges. Their authority, attention, and popularity are gradually declining, and this year saw a new high.

"The Social Network", a film that focused on the internet era, faced a comprehensive defeat, leading to a sharp decline in viewership and viewers. Coupled with media's sharp critiques, the Oscars, which had journeyed for eighty-three years, began to falter in their stride.

The debate over the Best Picture will not dissipate for quite some time, much like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crash", "Shakespeare in Love" and "Saving Private Ryan". Time will prove whether the Academy's choice this time was correct.

Of course, as an annual film extravaganza, the focus on the Oscars is naturally not limited to this. Alongside criticisms, there are also praises; alongside controversies, there are also praises. Apart from the controversies surrounding Best Picture and Best Director, another major focus is on Natalie Portman.

This actress, who rose to fame as a child star, successfully shook off the crisis of "body-doublegate" and, at almost thirty years old, gracefully claimed the Oscar for Best Actress. She became the first representative of Gen Y to receive the little golden statue and unquestionably became a leading figure among the new generation of actors. In the spotlight, she even surpassed Colin Firth and Tom Hooper, standing out uniquely.

Beneath Natalie's dazzling radiance, the shadows of the scandal were dispelled, and Renly Hall faded into the background. All the noise began to settle. Unsurprisingly so.