Winning Isn't the Only Thing - But It Helps
- Mike Fisher
- Mar 16, 2024
- 8 min read
“You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.”
- Harvey Dent
About every year and a half the reporting crew responsible for NBA analysis on TNT’s NBA Studio Show has some level of beef. I’m not diving into Kenny Smith’s comments about the women’s game, as that might be best served in my next article. Rather, I’m talking about two outspoken NBA Hall of Famers in Charles Barkely and Shaquille O’Neil. When they agree, they seem to make each other laugh as they dig into why today’s NBA isn’t their ideal form of the game - or other poignant observations that give genuine insight into what players might be thinking. To me, this is them at their best as they walked this walk for years, they keep in touch with many from the league, and more importantly, they have legacies that would be very hard to tarnish. The result is a lack of polish that is genuinely the best analysis, when focused. However, that isn’t the clickbait material that TNT always wants. They are also notorious for having a love-hate relationship where they aren’t afraid to dig into each other for a variety of reasons. They call each other out on any issue they don’t immediately agree on, and based on a quick look at retweets, posts and ratings - the fans dig it. Of course, you always know when this flare up gets to a level that pisses off Shaq, as he immediately makes a comment about championships. This is because despite various reasons, most notably having a career arc that peaked just as Michael Jordan was peaking, Barkley never won a championship. He was a phenomenal player who was undersized but still held his own - but he can’t compare to the physical dominance that Shaq was able to throw down - and therefore constantly fell short. Of course, Barkley would also point out that he additionally didn’t have teammates likes Kobe Bryant and Dwane Wade to help him get over the hump either.
The “who is better” argument isn’t as interesting to me as the championship focus. Barkley stopped playing after the 99-00 season at the age of 36, however he stopped being an All-Star (back when you didn’t just get in because you used to be good) in 1997. This means that he finished playing over 20 years ago, and yet he is still reminded on a yearly, if not monthly basis that he didn’t win a title. Of course, he isn’t the only one. There are a list of players in all major sports that are considered all time greats without winning their respective trophies. I speak about this in a former post from the COVID days if you want a bit more of a list and why I thought it may/may not matter. The reality is we are obsessed with victories as a way of measurement. It allows us to compare players, eras and dynasties. While I do think it’s a fun argument in sports, it’s more peculiar when this argument branches over to disciplines where winning isn’t really the point.
Christopher Nolan just did his victory lap on all things Hollywood that was capped off with a reasonably dominant showing at the 96th Academy Awards. Nominated for 13 and winning 7 in a year where only three movies won multiple awards (Poor Things and Zone of Interest were the other two) isn’t the most dominant in history, but it’s certainly considered a sweep in the modern context. Nolan isn’t known for his ability to fully capture what a female character might need in order to get up on stage to accept best lead actress, so the big 5 wasn’t going to happen (Picture, Director, Writer and both lead acting awards - or even the big 7 which adds the supporting actors… which has never been done), but it did run through with the major ones that it was meant to win. In another year, Emily Blunt might have been able to get on stage, but not a year when Da’Vine Joy Randolph ran the awards gauntlet. For Nolan, it was his elusive Picture and Director he was after - and this year he didn’t just accomplish that task - but he was such a favorite that Vegas odds were barely considering an alternative. In fact, Nolan will always have a bit of a relationship with the Awards as it’s often thought that it was the snub of his Dark Knight that forced the Academy’s hand into doubling the Best Picture nominations. All of this is very well documented and there are a number of articles, videos and podcasts dedicated to his level of success this year (or my pod which focused more on his most iconic four, AKA his Mount Rushmore). Yet, many of these sources fail to ask - does winning make him any better?
Legacies are tricky in the film industry as it’s a discipline that is obsessed with narrative, for obvious reasons. Therefore, once you have one, it’s tough to shake. Martin Scorsese is one of the greatest directors/filmmakers of the past century but the Academy has a weird way of showing this. Movies he has made has (I think) generated the second highest number of overall nominations (tough to track here as some of the older movies had less awards, or some include technical whereas I’m looking at the ones that make the main show). To put it into context, his movies have had 101 nominations versus Stephen Spielberg’s 147. Compare that to some two time best director winners (a small group than you may think) and you’d find him well above Ang Lee’s 38 total nods, Clint Eastwood’s 41, Oliver Stone’s 34 and Woody Allen’s 53. Yet if we start factoring percentage of wins (Lee’s 31.5%, Eastwood’s 31.7%, Stone’s 26.4%, Allen’s 22.6% and Speilberg’s 23.8%) Scorsese is standing at 19.8%. While that might not seem glaring as it’s only 4 points behind Speilberg, Marty also has the odd classification of only winning one Best Director trophy to everyone else on that lists 2, and have on three separate occasions, having a movie nominated for 10 awards only to go home with a goodie bag (and a series of videos taken by your daughter showing the world that you are also just Ken). He has notably been snubbed for Best Picture as well (with Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas being the prime example many go to when looking at which iconic movies went without the top trophy). In fact, his largest haul was twice when his movie was nominated for 11 and won 5 that year (The Aviator and Hugo…. Yup… Hugo). Yet in both of those cases the wins were in behind the camera categories, except for Cate Blanchett in the Aviator (which isn’t really his win as it involves two things the Academy loves: Blanchett and Hepburn). However, at least Marty got to party one year. Filmmakers like Kubric, Tarantino, Fincher, Anderson, Coppola (Sophia not Francis), Bergman, Fellini and Kurosawa have yet to (or will never) stand on stage and thank people awkwardly. And then that becomes their narrative. They are the rebels who don’t fit inside the Oscars box and seemingly don’t care (even when they do).
This isn’t the post I thought I’d write when first recording a Nolan pod. I thought I would be talking about a writer/director that writes a movie about a genius and doesn’t overdo it in the obvious ways (as most do - as I’m sure I will write about sooner than later). I also thought I’d include when filmmakers make movies that are low key about themselves. However, now that the Nolan brand just shifted its narrative from groundbreaking visionary loner - to - multiple Oscar winner and leader of the Oppen-hommies, I felt compelled to think more about what this will do for future projects. Will he also get the open cheque book that Marty and Senior Spellbergo get? Will his next project get immediately green lit? Or will he go through some kind of backtracking where he doesn’t play with time, structure and the natural order of things. The answer isn’t as important as the point. He will do what he wants.
I think the difference really is in the discipline. It makes sense for us to compare athletes who don’t win as sometimes it’s them (and not us). Some athletes are known for thriving when others shrink. However, it’s pretty odd to assume that directors will and can be properly assessed upon arrival. I’m as guilty as anyone else for falling into the trap of remembering which movie took top prize - yet - I’m also one that advocates for retroactive Oscars. I think after a decade each ceremony should be reassessed. Not in the interest of taking anyone’s award away. Once given - it counts. BUT why not include the concept of inspiration. So many great movies mean more after they come out. Kubrick’s 2001 gets mentioned by so many directors and filmmakers as something that pushed their own aspirations (see Gerwig’s choice to open this year’s Barbie movie). Yet, in 1968 the Academy thought Oliver! (a musical adaptation of Oliver Twist) was better deserving. Has anyone with any level of credibility made that argument since that exact day? So why not go back and right some wrongs. This way, wouldn’t it mean more if a movie kept its status? If we went back to 1991, took a real look at JFK, Thelma and Louise, Bugsy, Boyz in the Hood, Beauty and the Beast and the Prince of Tides, and then said: Yes. We got it right. Silence of the Lambs still kicks. Wouldn’t that be an endorsement? Then we could go back one year earlier and decide that Dancing with some Wolves can be fun, but we’ve seen the white savior movie done better. However, it never hit the heights as when Liotta told us that as far back as he could remember, he always wanted to be a gangster.
Content consumed prior to writing this article:
Dunkirk
You can tell from the get go, that the score is the MVP here. Well that and the cinematographer
This is about as pro-UK war movement as you can get without it being kitschy
Nolan is all over this. This might be the most Nolan of the movies (pre-Oppenheimer)
Can’t take Styles seriously. I really can’t
Barry Keoghan is a baby in this. Not his character or anything - that’s fine. He’s just super young looking here
This movie's stiff upper lip has its own stiff upper lip.
So propulsive.
Tense without always knowing what is happening in the big picture. Nolan has us where he wants us. You know the stakes for that scene, but have no idea what it means in the larger sense
Great ending - even if I have to do math and think of timelines
Was it a day, a week, or an hour? These are the questions that drive us - or at least Nolan
Oppenheimer
Two minutes in and I’m 90% sure this movie is low key about Nolan himself
If Dunkirk was propulsive - this is that times itself. Exponentially propulsive
It’s always an odd feeling when you watch something that you know so many people love and is meant to be fantastic. It’s great when it starts and you know you’re all in, right off the jump
So many great parts here. Super casted. I mean.. You do have to give up the notion that any female character will have really well written parts/importance - but we are talking Nolan after all. This would win the Oscar for best casting if it was a year later (when that will be an award)
I’m not sure why so many are pissed about the Pugh sex scenes. I mean the reading of the book might piss some people off, but I’m willing to bet that most people don’t even really know why. I thought the scene where they flashed to them together during the interrogation was actually affecting. His wife has to pretend she is blind to it all and just defend him (well.. She doesn’t have to… but she does). I thought it hammered the point home.
Matt Damon is fantastic. Casey Affleck is too good at being a super aggressive weirdo
By far his best - and in a time when so many directors made movies about themselves as geniuses (more on that in a later post) this one stands out as probably the biggest reach, but also the biggest hit
Batman Begins, Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises: All available in eventual Batman based article
Rewatchables Pods:
Inception, Dark Knight, Memento, Dunkirk (with Tarantino)
Comments