By now there has been a lot of waxing rhapsodic about the Oscar nominees, and just as much ink spilled on the most egregious snubs. But always little-discussed in the lead-up to the Academy Awards are the movies that fell by the wayside in the early going: films that once had Oscar buzz and then, for reasons of bad timing (The Ghost Writer, perhaps) or inferior quality (Hereafter!) or what have you, just lost it altogether. Two of last fall's most prominent instances of failed Oscar bait, Never Let Me Go and Conviction, have arrived on home video this month. Both are diverting films in their own right, but they also provide interesting case studies in the fickleness of buzz, and help to shed further light on precisely what it takes for a movie to become a year-end consensus favorite.
MORE OSCAR COVERAGE:
Bill Wyman: Oscar Nominations 2011: Why Does Hollywood Hate Hollywood?
Kevin Fallon: Oscar Nominations 2011: Snubs, Surprises, and What It All Means
Kevin Fallon: How to Predict This Year's Oscar Nominations
On paper, Never Let Me Go, now available on DVD and Blu-ray (though it doesn't hit Netflix until March 1), looks better than promising. The director, music-video veteran Mark Romanek, might be described as on-the-rise, and Alex Garland wrote the screenplay from a 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. And somber adaptations of respected bestsellers have lately done very well at the Oscars, becoming a particular specialty of producer Scott Rudin's (The Hours, No Country for Old Men). A love triangle with only the most genteel sci-fi touches, Never Let Me Go also comes loaded with top-notch British talent (Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, Andrew Garfield, Charlotte Rampling, and Sally Hawkins) and a carefully cultivated political opaqueness. For instance, the scenario, in which the harvesting of organs from flesh-and-blood clones has essentially rid the world of terminal illness, might be interpreted as both for (better embryos than these unlucky individuals) and against (embryos essentially are these unlucky individuals) stem-cell research; the film opens at a walled-off boarding school in 1978 England, perhaps thereby encrypting some comment upon Thatcherism, but also perhaps not--this is an alternate history, after all.
Happily, in the case of Never Let Me Go, the pedigree doesn't lie: It is indeed a good, solid prestige picture, one that doesn't use its status as such to excuse itself from asking the pertinent ethical questions. It's no worse than this year's most traditionalist Best Picture nominee, The King's Speech, if a good deal less stirring. What, then, wasn't quite right with Never Let Me Go? Many reviews upon its release were tepid, taking particular issue with the unrelenting bleakness of the story. Perhaps it's as simple as that: It's too much of a downer.
But I suspect the film might have gained more awards traction with a few simple adjustments: if it were set a few decades earlier, in the thick of World War II, or its concluding voiceover narration were omitted. Never Let Me Go might not be patently political, but a dystopic air of authoritarian policy hangs over the proceedings. Institutions like the Academy seem to feel more comfortable with such airtight atmospheres of dread if they can be safely quarantined in the past, preferably by some association with the indisputably vanquished Third Reich, or counterbalanced by a hopeful arc for the protagonist. Martin Scorsese's Shutter Island is another recent example of a well-made, accessible film that is nonetheless uncompromising in its downhill trajectories, and therefore Oscar-unfriendly.