March 25, 2002

Is There No Justice in the World?
Everett V.

I'm fairly sure that I speak for most when I say, somewhat hyperbolically (Personally, I think the adjectival form of hyperbole should be hyperbolous, thus making the adverbial form hyperbolously because the word hyperbolic is also the adjectival form of hyperbola, but I digress.), that there were massive miscarriages of justice at last night's Acadamy Awards, that certain Oscars were awarded to the wrong candidates. Specifically, the awards for Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay, and, arguably, Best Picture and Costume Design were awarded to candidates that were not the most desrving of them (i.e. not "The Fellowship of the Ring").

To even begin to assert that Ron Howard's work on "A Beautiful Mind" is in any way superior to Peter Jackson's work on "The Fellowship of the Ring" is ridiculous (Admittedly, I have yet to see "A Beautiful Mind", but reviews of it from people I know who have seen both "Mind" and "Fellowship" range from stupid to all right). Ron Howard had to direct a movie that attempted to convey the life and psychological sufferings of a schizophrenic genius, something which is dependant upon, ultimately, a single actor. Jackson had re-create an entire world and tell a story with over ten major characters. To do this requires not only finding the right actors for each individual part, but also getting them to work well together. Ultimately, the quality of a movie like "Fellowship" is far more dependant upon the quality of its direction than a movie like "Mind", which is why not giving this award to Peter Jackson is such a travesty of justice (I'm using hyperbole again. I really don't care about the Oscars, and I expected this to happen, but I don't really like it when people make decisions that are obviously wrong.).

Giving the award for Best Adapted screenplay to "A Beautiful Mind" is an even greater travesty than giving Ron Howard the award for Best Director (Ron deserved a Best Director Oscar for Apollo 13, so the Acadamy can justify this award by saying that they owed him one.). To be able to adapt one of the most detailed and complex stories ever written in a way that makes sense to someone who has never read the book without overly disappointing the die-hard Tolkien fans is absolutely incredible. Even if the story of John Nash is anywhere near as complicated as "The Lord of the Rings", or even "The Fellowship of the Ring" alone, any adaptation of it to the screen would not be held to the standard of "Fellowship" and the other two movies in the trilogy because Nash's story is not anywhere near as well known "The Lord of the Rings", the adaptation had only to be primarily concerned with making the story comrehensible and intersting to those who are unfamiliar with the story, whereas "Fellowship" had to that without greatly angering fans of Tolkien's work, which it pulled off with amazing success.

I have to go to class now, so I will sum up by offering a possible explanation as to why "Fellowship" did not get all of the awards it should have. The reason is that there is a general institutional bias against works of fantasy among the Hollywood elite. They prefer more "serious" movies and, I would assume, works of literature (For a great piece on seriousness, read Larry Miller's piece at www.theweeklystandard.com.). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that they have not read "The Lord of the Rings", which is essential to realizing just how excellent the movie is.