Oscar buzz for 'Crazy Heart,' or static electricity?

An obsessively long article in today’s New York Times chronicles the supposed emergence of Crazy Heart, a low-budget movie starring Jeff Bridges as a washed-up country singer , as a possible Oscar contender. Now, maybe Crazy Heart is great, maybe Jeff Bridges is great (he usually is), and maybe this is one of the best movies of the year. Or maybe not. The thing is, how the heck would you or I know, since none of us has yet seen it? For that matter, how the heck would Oscar voters know, since they haven’t yet seen it either?

With great love and admiration for the brilliant analysis my EW brothers and sisters (led by the erudite Dave Karger — hi, Dave!) do in covering the great annual moviepalooza known as the Academy Awards, I’ve got an uncontrollable urge to jump in here and say: Show me the movie before you tell me the odds! Show me, even though my opinion (either professional or off-duty) doesn’t matter in this race. Show me (and you), even though I know that the winners of those coveted naked-bald-man statues are the result of a process that’s indescribably farklempt (as they say in Hollywood). I don’t know a movie-lover around who really believes that Oscar = Best. But it would be nice if, in the months and months leading up to the nominations and awards, we could at least believe that Movie = Seen.

And in the meantime, regarding Crazy Heart and its award-worthiness: Sez who?

You know?

Previous Post '70s behind-the-camera greats: How Laszlo Kovacs and Vilmos Zsigmond put the cinema in cinematography

Next Post Oscar documentary scandal: The real reason that too many good movies got left out

Comments (1-15) of 18 Add your comment

Page:

jfms777
Thu 11/19/09 12:47 PM

I guess Owen’s memory is short. Before “Julie and Julia” was released there was much much buzz
about how great Meryl Streep was in the movie. And she really is. Gee, Owen, I don’t remember you bitchin’ about the pre-”Julie”
buzz. Let the TIMES be. And Dave Karger goofs now and then.

Reply
Josh
Thu 11/19/09 12:49 PM

Oscar-worthy or not, based on the trailer I can’t wait to see it. Looks like Jeff Bridges does an amazing job.

Reply
Bobby’s Robot
Thu 11/19/09 12:51 PM

And yet, there’s Oscar speculation about Up in the Air, Invictus, Lovely Bones, Avatar, A Single Man…all of which I assume the critics have seen already?

Reply
- Lisa Schwarzbaum
  Thu 11/19/09 1:08 PM
  
  The only one I’ve seen so far is ‘A Single Man.’ But anyway, critics aren’t Oscar voters–whose judgment really (so they tell me) matters!
  
  Reply
  - Allan
    Thu 11/19/09 4:02 PM
    
    This does undercut your point about this particular movie though, doesn’t it?
Michael
Thu 11/19/09 12:57 PM

This is basic PR for Jeff Bridges. History shows that it is hard to win a Best Actor Oscar without your picture being nominated. (It probably was the main factor in Mickey Rourke losing to Sean Penn last year. In fact, I believe that if there were 10 Best Pic nominees last year, Rourke would have got the Oscar.) With 10 nominees this year, it makes sense for Bridges’ people to campaign for a Best Picture nod. So why not pay for a big article in the NY Times?

Reply
- UncleWalty
  Fri 11/20/09 8:21 AM
  
  I don’t really understand how Sean Penn has two Oscars. He doesn’t create characters, he OVERACTS.
  
  Reply
  - Cole9219
    Fri 11/20/09 3:41 PM
    
    Are you f*cking serious??? He was great in Milk!!! That deserved Best Picture!
graeme
Thu 11/19/09 1:01 PM

Huh? Isn’t that always the case with Oscar films? Screenings haven’t occurred for movies like Nine or Avatar yet and everyone is talking about them being major contenders.

It’s nice when buzz is actually based on talk AFTER people have seen the performance (i.e. Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”)

Reply
Ben
Thu 11/19/09 3:40 PM

the movie doesn’t actually matter in the long run. the reader had good buzz, was awful and ended up a major contender anyway. same with crash, babel, etc. (and slumdog millionaire, in my opinion)

Reply
- UncleWalty
  Fri 11/20/09 8:17 AM
  
  Crash I really liked. But I agree with you about Slumdog…it sucked.
  
  Reply
DT
Fri 11/20/09 1:02 AM

I’ve always found it ludicrous for awards buzz to start in Aug./Sept. for movies that get rolled out gradually in Dec./Jan. anyway. That being said, I’m usually in line for them anyway. I personally preferred THE WRESTLER and Mickey Rourke last year over MILK and SLUMDOG, though I enjoyed the latter movies. From the trailers I’ve seen, CRAZY HEART feels like THE WRESTLER with country music in that it’s about a grizzled old veteran trying to make a comeback after years of hard living and disappointment, so I’ll be checking it out.

Reply
- DT
  Fri 11/20/09 1:04 AM
  
  Also, with the Oscars not even occuring until Feb. or March, why are we even talking about that just yet?
  
  Reply
Frank Anderson
Fri 11/20/09 10:11 AM

Why are these blogs not getting put on the front page of EW.com?

I come to this site for stuff like this- not ‘How HOT are the Stars of Twilight’ or ‘90210>Gossip Girl>Melrose place… Totally? Like, Really?’

On subject- The clips I have seen of this move look pretty good, but something like this happens every award season.

I am pretty sure EW just had a piece a few weeks ago about what movies are leading the Oscar pack.

I think this is probably because it is pretty predictable what movies are Oscar Bait.

Is it a Biopic? It has a chance at an Oscar.

Does it star a star who downplays their good looks, is old and looking for redemption(Crazy Heart) or has some kind of ailment (retardation always a plus!)? It has a chance at an Oscar.

It is about poor people overcoming their ’situation’ to rise to the top? It has a chance at an Oscar.

Is it set in the Victorian period, and have the actresses in corsets and the actors in shirts with frilly sleeves? It has a chance at an Oscar.

I could do this all day. I am like the Jeff Foxworthy of rules for winning an Oscar.

Reply
- T
  Fri 11/20/09 12:38 PM
  
  I agree. I get so excited when EWs intelligent commentators post thoughtful blogs. Couldn’t these take up just a little space on the homepage between all those Twilight articles?
  
  Reply
David
Fri 11/20/09 9:36 PM

It’s an indie, a labor of love. The only chance it has to compete in the holiday marketplace is if its distributors talk up its awards potential. Buzz begets buzz. They can’t afford happy meal tie-ins, so they gotta go the prestige route. The Wrestler used this exact strategy to great effect last year. You show the folks some smoke, and they’ll believe there’s fire.

Reply
Flandersucks
Sat 11/21/09 2:14 PM

I knew it! I knew it! I knew it! Yes you pay a backhanded compliment to Bridges, but after your omission of him on your 100 actors that you’ll watch on whatever you dorks watch stuff on, and your eager F on his new movie which did not deserve an F, the whole Underrated thing really bothers the folks at this magazine. This guy has been doing the Oscar odds for months, and it’s only when the Bridges movie gets thrown in do one of you guys screams FOUL!

Reply
kristen
Tue 12/01/09 11:58 AM

I agree that Oscar does NOT equal good. I’m still reeling from Crash winning best picture, after all… *refuses to get over it, years later*
I have no opinion on this movie, because… er… I haven’t seen it either.

(One Oscar category I am extremely anxious about is the Animation category… Pixar seems to have an intravenous feed of Best Animated Film Oscars, but I may have to stage a protest if “Up” wins anything. I am, however, torn between my love for Ponyo, Coraline, and Fantastic Mr. Fox, the latter being the BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME(?)

Reply

Page:

Add your comment

The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.