"No Country for Old Men" is 2007's movie MVP.
(Credit: Miramax)
From: Pais, Matthew
To: Berkshire, Geoff
Subject: RE: Oscars
I couldn't agree more about Gilroy—I really hope we see a lot more from him. Reitman too, though his craft doesn't quite wow me as much yet.
"Atonement" also didn't wow me, and despite its obvious Oscar baiting—seriously, could there be any more ads for this freaking movie?—I don't think there's enough widespread love for it to boost it to a surprise victory. People will still be arguing about "There Will Be Blood" years from now but something polarizing is not necessarily something extraordinary or award-worthy, and "Michael Clayton" is indeed too small and overlooked to have much of a chance at best picture.
So, as you stated, Geoff, the question on everyone's mind is: can the little box office hit "Juno" topple the less profitable but otherwise mammoth effort of "No Country for Old Men"? No, it can't.
The fact is—and, since you brought it up, I'll start the contrarian chorus in advance—“Juno” isn't that great, though it is very, very good. It's the kind of movie driven by solid writing, directing and acting, and one that most people can and do enjoy, but comparing it to "No Country" is like arguing a typical NBA rookie of the year should also be the league MVP. The movies operate on different levels, and their achievements, while both deserving of mention, are far from equals in the grand scheme of things.
"Juno" hints at greatness to come from a lot of people, but its reward is its nomination and its relevance here and now. "No Country" reflects greatness being done as we speak, and years down the line it will still look as great as it does today. That's something the best picture award doesn't always guarantee, but we should all celebrate a year with so many strong contenders in which it appears, knock on wood, that the proper, best film will go home with the top prize.
Add a comment