John Scalzi - Ridley Scott Deserves an Oscar, Even If It's an Honorary One
Every year (or close enough), the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences gives out an honorary Academy Award in addition to its usual slate of Oscars for best picture, actor, director and so on. Historically this honorary award was given to recognize folks in categories for which there was no standard award (Walt Disney got one in 1932, for creating Mickey Mouse, and Shirley Temple got one in 1935, for, well, being Shirley Temple), but as the number of regular prizes expanded, the honorary award morphed into a ersatz lifetime achievement award, given to folks who have otherwise slipped between the Oscar cracks in their long and distinguished careers. Such was the case with directors Robert Altman and Sidney Lumet and actor Peter O' Toole in recent years.
I'm not in the Academy -- seems they are sticklers about who they let in, and guys blathering about movies on a Web site don't count -- but I do have an excellent idea for who they should be thinking about handing down one of those honorary awards to: Director Ridley Scott.
Scott, of course, will be immensely familiar to science fiction fans, since he directed two indisputable classics of the genre: 1979's Alien, and 1982's Blade Runner. One could argue that these for these two movies alone, Scott merits lifetime achievement consideration, because the two films have had immense influence on the look and feel, not just of science fiction film, but of film in general. But as it happens, Scott's critical contributions to the science fiction genre are just one facet of a film career that genuinely deserves praise and note -- and just one piece of the puzzle for his consideration for an honorary Oscar. Let's look at some of the other reasons.
1. Scott is not a one-trick pony.
When people
who know of Ridley Scott think of the "Ridley Scott feel," as it were,
what comes to their heads is: Epic, massive and awe-inspiring -- which
makes sense when you are are talking about the director of such
gorgeously visually-designed films as Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator. When Scott goes overboard, it can be a bit much -- see Legend,
possibly the most ridiculous fantasy film of the '80s, and that's
saying something -- but it's never less than gorgeous. This visual
production fantasia thing Scott's got going is definitely his calling
card in the cinematic art.
That said, Scott's first Oscar nomination for Best Director came not with any of his eye-poppers, but for 1991's Thelma & Louise. The feminist road-trip movie, grittily shot, was so wholly unlike anything the man directed before that I think people couldn't believe this was from that Alien dude. Believe it -- under Scott's epic-loving exterior is a director who likes directing stories about people. He did it again with Matchstick Men, somewhat less successfully with A Good Year, and then managed to fuse both his epic and realist sides for last year's American Gangster.
Scott's actual facility with actors is underrated, and given his occasional lapse into empty commercial noisiness (Black Rain and G.I. Jane, which play like films by Tony Scott, not Ridley), it's understandable that people forget that. But at the end of the day, what makes Scott a better director than mechanically-obsessed craftsmen like Michael Bay or George Lucas is that he doesn't need the epic toys to tell a story: He can do it with just the actors in front of the camera.
2. Scott is unlikely to win an actual Best Director award.
Yes, I know: Weird that a man with at least three genuine cinematic classics to his name (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise) should be bereft of an Oscar. Scott even directed a Best Picture -- Gladiator -- but didn't get the gold statue, and the two other times he's been nominated for Best Director (for Thema and for Black Hawk Down) his movie wasn't nominated for Best Picture, which essentially means he had no chance. American Gangster
was arguably snubbed last year for picture and director. And
ultimately, while I think there's a widespread admiration for Scott's
craft and commercial sense, I also think he's taken a bit for granted
-- a director with a good eye but no heart, perhaps (and unfairly) --
and someone like that is not someone that competes well down the
stretch for an Oscar.
Not winning an a Best Director award doesn't mean one isn't, in fact, an excellent director -- ask Alfred Hitchcock about this, or honorary recipients Altman or Lumet. It's simply a fact that every year the Oscar race has a different dynamic, and some great directors keep getting the short end of the stick. The honorary award exists at this point to say "hey, now, wait a minute," and give someone who deserves recognition that moment. With three Best Director nominations and a billion dollars in domestic box office gross over 30 years, Scott has a good argument for such recognition.
3. He's almost old enough for it now.
Ridley
Scott is 71 years old, and the honorary Oscars tend to get doled out
when the recipient is in his mid-70s (with some exceptions: Robert
Redford was a spry 64 or so when he got his). He's in his fourth decade
of feature film directing, his fifth decade of filmmaking in general,
and aside from his work as a film director, has had a healthy side
career in film production and other visual endeavors (including what is
generally regarded as the most influential spot in the history of television advertising).
Basically, he's done his time, he's made his mark -- and given the
number of films he has in pre-production, will still be making it for
some time -- and, alas, he's not getting any younger.
Add it all up: The man deserves an Oscar. An honorary Oscar will do just fine, thanks.
Your thoughts?
Winner of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies as well as the novels Old Man's War and the upcoming Zoe's Tale. His column appears every Thursday.
Well, yeah. I'm afraid he will be treated like the Monkees, though. The Academy like to distance itself from the hoi polloi. The unwashed can only give awards with dollar signs at the front, and he is certainly a winner there.
I agree wholeheartedly. Give this man an Oscar, dammit!
However, I would like to say that, while I thought Gladiator was an amazing film, I had no idea what an epic masterpiece really meant until I saw Ridley's Kingdom of Heaven (the Director's Cut). The DC version is so far and away bettter than the theatrical version, that it should be a crime for studio execs to be so clueless.
I never thought I'd say it . . . but KoH is actually *better* than Gladiator! Those who haven't done so seriously need to go out and splurge--buy, don't rent--the spectacular 4-disc set. I mean, he manages to make Orlando Bloom look good as a leading man. That alone is almost Oscar worthy . . .
Ummmm....
I like Legend.
I'm sorry.
Return to your business...nothing to see here.
One of my favorite Ridley Scott films is his first feature - The Duelists (1977). I agree, the man deserves some Academy love.
There is much to like about "Legend," JimR. Keep in mind it was utterly butchered and rebutchered several times (key scenes cut, new soundtrack added). But a director's cut is available now on DVD, which improves it immensely (and offers both the Tangerine Dream and the original, more classical sountracks).
It's still overblown, but if you can't forgive that in a high fantasy you can't forgive much of anything. :-)
I'm not a big fan of Gladiator, personally. It's derivative and the oversaturated jerky camera works better on TV than the big screen.
Black Rain, though, I thought was the first movie to really capture the Cyberpunk atmosphere, even without a Cyberpunk plot. Even more so than Blade Running, with its rain, dark and neon, Black Rain felt like it could turn into Mona Lisa Overdrive at any moment.
Oh, and about legend. I can't think of that movie without laughing about Tim Curry's horns: wubba, wubba, wubba.
As a note, both "Alien" and "Blade Runner" received the Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation in their respective years (no, "Legend" wasn't even nominated).
Not that a Hugo is any consolation for missing out on an Oscar, but it does show that the SF community knew these were great films.
Okay, the competition was (respectively) stuff like "The Muppet Movie" and "E.T". Still, there's a point there. Hey wait - "E.T." was nominated for Best Picture. I rest my case.
- yeff
Give Ridley Scott an Honourary Oscar? Hell yes.
I think that the thing about Ridley Scott that has most impressed me, after I saw multiple viewings of Blade Runner and Alien, is that he isn't just a SF movie maker but has a huge range. It'd be like finding out that Robert Altman made SF films -- oh wait, he did (Countdown and Quintet).
That Ridley and his brother haven't been afraid to branch out and be responsible for one of the few attempts at a scientifically literate television show, NUMB3RS, even if they can't spell, is also impressive, though irrelevant to the Academy.
Without question Ridley Scott's movies have had a profound effect on movies in general and SF in particular.
Good call, Mr. Scalzi.
Dr. Phil
Oh, indeeed!
He's overdue for his classics alone.
He's overdue for an award form the UN or something for Blade Runner being the guide for fashion, technology and civilization to boot!
Of course he deserves an Oscar. Blade Runner was brilliant. Now I'll have to rewatch the "final director's cut" tonight.
I just saw American Gangster and thought it was amazing, in a different way.
Thelma & Louise and Gladiator didn't work for me. It may be the mom in me, but throughout Gladiator I thought the sister should have killed the Emperor and been done with it (forgot names). He threatened her SON. It would have made a much shorter, if more satisfying movie. DH laughs every time we talk about the movie and I mention that. He loved the movie. I loved the music, though.
I kept watching T & L (waiting for it to get good) because so many people told me how "moving and honest" it was. I got to the end and said to myself, "Is that the end? It never got better."
Many people disagreed, of course. Both movies made buckets of money.
Perhaps one of his current projects will win him a best Director's Oscar.
You should watch the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven then, Fiona. Ridely has a strongly poignant mother-son understory going on there, which was strangely cut out from the theatrical release. But many agree that it added a huge amount of depth to the story when it was threaded back in.
Thanks, David. I'll put it high on my nexflix list.
That's another reason I love these blogs, I get great to-be-seen list suggestions.
I think that knighthood he got back in 2003 might have been for something related to his film work. But, of course, the Queen is *constantly* handing those out to film people, so you know, it's probably not that big a deal.
(All snark is just channeling my annoyance that Scott has never been honored for Best Director, especially for the impact he's had on visual expression.)
-m
No problem, Fiona. The movie also has an awesome soundtrack, which I just *love*. Remember to rent the director's cut, though, as the theatrical one is also separately available on DVD. You want to stay as far away from that one as possible.
But fair warning, the DC version is fairly long. Long enough to need an intermission halfway through.
David, that's the joy of watching videos at home.
Perhaps we can get a new award--the SCALZI--the top honor for lifetime achievement in all aspects of SF.
JoelFinkle, you laughed about Tim Curry's horns in Legend. Those I gave a pass. I got my chuckles from Tom Cruise. And I haven't stopped laughing since.
The Oprah couch incident was especially hilarious.
Hmmm. I'm also not a member of the Academy, but I'm trying to think whether any of the lifetime achievement awards have gone to directors primarily noted for genre films. Sam Peckinpah, for instance, has nominations but no wins, and also no honorary (although I'll note that I consider Ridley Scott more deserving on all counts). This could just be another case of anti-genre-fiction predjudice. You get used to it.
I definitely agree. Scott's scope is epic without sacrificing great acting, great storytelling. Love it. And damn, but can he depict a battle! I thought he was tops with Blackhawk Down. Then I saw Kingdom of Heaven! Just great. Long overdue for recognition.