On February 28th
(28/2/16) the Academy Awards (Oscars) take place in Hollywood, California, US.
As an outsider I
think a large part of the Oscar's enduring success is that it has never lost
sight of its true purpose. That is of as an industry awards. Of course it helps
that the industry in question is an extremely glamorous one that most everybody
secretly wishes they could be a part of.
If you are one of
those people who stays in their seat until the credits have ended you will know
that the movie industry can be very cliquey. Directors tend to work with the
same group of screenwriters, photographers, actors etc. For example if Joss
Whedon is directing a project it's a fair bet that the actress Amy Acker will
appear at some point.
However this goes
beyond simply finding jobs for your less talented friends. On set things run
more smoothly if everybody sees the world in the same way - the grand artistic
vision. As such the controversies and discussions that surround the Oscars
serve an important purpose within the industry. It allows newcomers to be
tested out to see whether they'd fit in on a future project and keep the Cara Delevingne's of this world to minimum.
Therefore while it
would probably boost my readership dramatically if I shared all the secrets
prior to the ceremony I think in the long run it would just spoil it for
everyone.
However this year's
big movie is so big and of such global significance I've decided that it
constitutes Force Majeure.
The movie I'm talking
about is of course Alejandro G Inarritu's spellcheck baiting "The
Revenant." This is largely seen as a star vehicle intended to allow
Leonardo DiCaprio to finally win the best actor Oscar he's missed out on in
various other movies such as "The Departed."
Throughout his 25
year career DiCaprio has tried use his wealth and star power to make the World
a better place. Unfortunately though I think his efforts to highlight Africa's
vicious mineral wars in 2006's "Blood Diamond" were rather drowned
out by his absolutely appalling South African accent.
In recent years
DiCaprio has concentrated heavily on the issue of climate change even being
appointed as an official Ambassador for the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
DiCaprio's commitment to this role goes far beyond
simply turning up to the occasional function or recording the occasional video
message. His "Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation" has actually funded a lot of credible research
into renewable energy. Therefore within climate change circles DiCaprio is taken
seriously. For a celebrity.
As such The Revenant
is supposed to reflect DiCaprio's efforts to combat change and in particular
the draft agreement that was reached at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21)
in Paris at the end of 2015.
For example much of
the movie features DiCaprio's character - Hugh Glass - trekking alone through the
frozen wilderness of the American northwest. This showcases the insignificance
and vulnerability of man in the face of the awesome power of nature.
The narrative of a
man being left for dead before battling back to rejoin civilisation is a
metaphor for the journey towards COP21. Efforts to combat climate change of
course failed at COP15 in Copenhagen back in 2009. The entire process was intended to have been killed off at COP18 in Doha in 2012. COP21 was supposed
to mark a triumphant return.
The title of the film
is not so much inspired by as directly stolen from a French TV Series "Les
Revenants" (The Returned.)
Essentially this is a
Zombie drama. However it doesn't feature your typical lumbering, brain eating,
decaying Zombies. Instead these Zombies seem to be perfectly normal and just
like everybody else. Many of them don't even realise that they're dead.
Les Revenants is one
of those shows that rather than telling the audience a story per se it instead
asks questions of that audience.
For example some of
the central characters are a traditional family with twin daughters. One of the
daughters is killed in a bus accident whilst on a school trip while the other
daughter who missed the trip through illness survives. So when the Zombie twin
returns she is still a pubescent girl of around 12 or 13. In her absence
though the living twin has continued to grow up and is now at the age of around
16 or 17 where she's starting to go out partying and staying out all night with
boys.
This contrast of
course poses all sorts of questions about growing up including that old
favourite of the Olympics and the Eurovision Song Contest - the age of sexual
consent. After all legally both twins are the same age so why isn't acceptable
for the Zombie twin to also be sexually active? It of course also raises issues
of parental grief and that old assertion that in the eyes of their parents
children never really grow up.
If there is a central character in what is an
ensemble piece it is this woman "Julie." In her recent past Julie has
experienced some sort of traumatic event and since that event entered into what
we assume was her first lesbian relationship with a local policewoman. That
relationship has ended but the policewoman is obviously keen to see it re-kindled.
One day Julie is sort
of adopted by this Zombie boy of around 10 or 11. This triggers the re-kindling
of the relationship and Julie and the policewoman effectively become the boy's
lesbian parents raising all sorts of questions about homosexuality and gay
parenting.
As the first season
draws to a close and throughout the second season the Zombies begin to emerge
as a separate group from the living. This raises all sorts of questions about
tribalism and the concept of otherness that are at the heart of all racist and
sectarian conflicts. At the time I think I made specific reference to the Nazi
Holocaust.
I have to say though
that I found the second season to be extremely hard work. This was primarily
because it was broadcast some four years after the first season.
The delay was
the result of some production problem such as getting the season commissioned
or getting actors to commit. The second season did make a series of in-jokes
about this production problem but having it filtered through the problem of
getting the UK distributor to pick it up these largely went over my head.
My main problem was
that over the course of those four years I'd largely forgotten how season one
had ended. I remain convinced that it ended with Julie, the policewoman and the
Zombie boy trying escape the town by driving over a dam but being prevented
from doing so by some supernatural force.
The second season
began with the town being flooded by some unspecified cause and taken over by
the French military. Many of the original cast including the policewoman were
simply missing with no explanation.
With Inarritu being
something of Mexico's golden boy there was a lot of gossip about Les Revenants
across South America throughout 2015.
For example a big
theme in season one was concerns that a dam would burst flooding the town as
had happened some 35 years before. Then of course in the second season the town
had been flooded.
So for example in
October 2015 the receding waters of a reservoir in Mexico exposed the 400
year old Temple of Santiago Church that had been submerged when the dam was
built and the reservoir was created. Photographs of the scene were essentially
the opening shot of the title credits of Les Revenants.
Then on November 5th
(5/11/15) a dam burst in Bento Rodrigues, Mariana, Brazil flooding a near-by
town with toxic water killing 17 residents.
Not being aware of
the DiCaprio link at the time and struggling with season two myself I didn't
think that it was worth my time addressing Les Reveants directly as opposed to,
say, working on the negotiating text itself.
However looking back
it is clear that a large part of the reason why COP21 failed was because the US
and Brazil got bogged down in the detail of the Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) - the so-called "Sheen Clause"
- at the expense of all other aspects.
As a result I can't
escape this nasty feeling that maybe I made the wrong decision by failing to
address Les Revenants directly.
This of course brings
me onto the wider question of whether I think DiCaprio deserves an Oscar in reflection
of his work on climate change?
It is obvious that
DiCaprio is a man whose long wanted to walk in my shoes. Therefore a victory
for him would mean an awful lot of reflected glory for me.
However the fact of
the matter is that COP21 was not a triumphant return. Instead it saw efforts to
combat climate change die face down in the dirt. Its bloated, rotting corpse is now
starting to present a health hazard all of its own.
That means DiCaprio
failed. It means UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres failed. It means that COP21
President Laurent Fabius failed. It means I failed. It means we all failed.
Handing out awards
for failure has never sat well with me.
Although I held my
tongue at the time DiCaprio's appearance at COP21 on Saturday December 5th
(5/12/15) actually struck me as part of the problem.
DiCaprio's primary
role as UNFCCC Ambassador is to raise the profile of the organisation amongst
people who enjoy his movies but don't necessarily watch that news or understand
terms like "Binary Differentiation."
However DiCaprio is either not
famous enough or not the right type of famous that the press and the paparazzi
would go through the arduous process of getting accredited for a COP Summit on
the off chance that he might appear. As such I'm not sure how much extra publicity
DiCaprio actually brought to COP21.
The arrival of
DiCaprio's Hollywood glamour did have a huge effect on the - frankly - nerds
who were attending COP21 already. These people don't need any reminding of the
importance of taking action on climate change and already find the topic
exciting. So rather than trying to excite them further the challenge is often
to keep them calm and thinking rationally in what is an extremely high pressure
environment.
DiCaprio's appearance
occurred at a crucial point in negotiations. The relevant working group had just
finalised the draft to be sent to the high level segment for final negotiation.
This left delegates facing the crucial decision of whether to accept that draft
or send it back for further work.
Therefore I think
that rather then getting excited over DiCaprio it would've be better for
delegates to have spent that Saturday sleeping, having a nice meal, taking a
walk in the park, visiting one of Paris' famous art galleries or doing whatever
it is they do to relax and clear their heads.
The problem was
actually highlighted in the closing plenary the following Saturday. If you
watch it again you'll notice that in the front-row there are two young, blonde
female delegates in hysterical floods of tears apparently in full Beatlemania mode. Looking at that you can't help
but ask whether the decisions being made at that point were good decisions.
Then of course there
is DiCaprio's unfortunate liaison with Rihanna in Paris last Tuesday (19/1/16).
Although I think at worst DiCaprio was simply playing along with a tabloid
rumour I had two primary objectives in dedicating 2013 to Rihanna's Diamonds
World Tour. The first was to protect the UNFCCC process while the second was to
protect Rihanna and her career. With it now looking like I've failed on both
fronts that is a bit of a sore point.
As such the whole
thing struck me as rather unnecessary and posed some serious questions about
DiCaprio's judgement and whether he has the skill set to be a positive
influence on Rihanna.
Fortunately for
DiCaprio though the criteria for membership of the Academy has not yet slipped to the point that it
includes blogs.
Hopefully though the
"Oscars So White" protesters will come to realise why Academy members
are sitting there going;
"Micheal B
Jordan was in a rocky movie. That's cute(!)"
After all their continuing stupidity is really starting to bum people out.
17:10 on 26/1/16 (UK date).
No comments:
Post a Comment