Great article that delicately eases into the hard truth about CODA: stumbling across it as a Disney Channel Movie of the Week it's maybe a fine surprise, a Best Picture win makes it a dispiriting sign of cultural cowardice. It's not like the Oscars have been totally given over to pabulum - for every Green Book we get a Parasite, for every CODA a Moonlight. CODA owes its win to a pandemic-weakened slate as much as anything and such is the gift and curse of the ranked-tier voting system. The Power of the Dog may have gotten many of us amped, but to Campion's eternal credit I don't think she's capable of making a movie that won't find its way to the bottom half of many Academy ballots.
I think the only place the CODA is ill-served by winning Best Picture is in the opinions of people who read exemplary newsletters like the The Reveal. Among less terminally obsessed people in my life, it seems winning has helped it find an audience, which is all I hope for any movie (with the exception of the Joker/Green Book/Birdman tier of Oscar nominee). Family and co-workers like it, and they wouldn't have seen it otherwise -- that's all CODA ever asked for. That said, modern audiences should be asking for a lot more from CODA and Hollywood studios more broadly.
I’m so glad to see RUNNING ON EMPTY explored here. I only just discovered the film this past year, in between my two viewings of CODA in fact, and it completely floored me.
Other than the higher stakes and the Lumet of it all, ROE’s central romance just destroys CODA. Martha Plymton’s Lorna could easily carry her own movie.
CODA won’t be remembered at all. Because of the slap. And possibly because this felt like the last Oscars. Movies aren’t in the zeitgeist anymore. Nobody talks about CODA around the water cooler. The Oscars are like Hockey now. If you follow you really like it and can name the last handful of Stanley Cup winners if you don’t like it you barely know it exists( and never the Twain shall meet).
Remember when people would do Forest Gump impressions or you could say “I’m the king of the world” or “I can’t quit you” and most people knew the references. I just don’t think that happens anymore.
Also we’ve always known the Oscars almost never get it right and it’s all fake. Now they can’t even serve up the illusion that it’s prestigious and that the Movies matter because they got Twitter Polls and celebrities fighting on stage. It’s reality TV. In the internet age: movies, people getting slapped, books, any culture at all is just Hockey. If you follow it you like, if you don’t, it doesn’t even show up in your feed. CODA is fine. The Oscars are dead.
Additional point to consider: since CODA's win for Best Picture (+other top-tier Academy Awards), I can grok that a lot more people have and will come to it out of genuine interest, now that it won The Film Award most (Americans) care about. But this returns to an issue I brought up before about Turning Red, and I suspect this won't go away... if each of these marquee movies get snatched up by exclusive deals on major streaming services, and if they are also not supported by physical release/distribution somehow, what remains of our shared cinephilia? Do we completely forsake accessing the same films? I get that before we simply made choices what to watch/not to watch if it was out on the rental market or re-run on cable, but I don't see everyone opening accounts to all the major streaming services available. Outside of film/tv reviewers, I don't know anybody who has all of the following: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+ and Apple+ (the best I can say is that I know some with 3-4 of the six). There are going to be major films - awards winners among them - that simply cannot be watched in many households, and we're just going to shrug and move forward with that?
I have all of those but a) I’m in the business and b) I write all that off my taxes. For those who aren’t me this is an excellent point. I remember being out of the conversation for a bunch of 90s shows because I didn’t have HBO. This is that same issue compounded by an ever growing number of services.
Wow! Interesting - that makes so much sense, though. I have wondered about that with film reviewers today, since um, others besides you two that I uh, "hear/read about" seem to also have access to all the streaming services for all the new movies that get released. Yet sadly, I'm also aware that film criticism isn't a lucrative profession (for the actual critic, that is) so I wondered how they got by. Appreciate the comments from you both and the relevant tidbit especially!
"What remains of our shared cinephilia?" The question haunts me, and extends to other things like a shared understanding of basic realities in the world. But I digress! I've been fortunate lately to be present for some pretty special public screenings-- a crowded matinee of Moonstruck with my 14yo, last week's awesome Cage double feature (Matchstick Men and Face/Off) to launch Keith's book, and a raucous Sunday show of 'Everything Everywhere All at Once'-- and it's been a fine opportunity to reconnect with my favorite pastime. And I'm certainly happy to have this newsletter and forum to talk to others who share my passion. But you're correct that film, even more than TV, is feeling awfully diffuse right now, and it's not affordable for everyone to have all these services.
I already bit off a large enough chunk of CODA, but how many people have Apple TV+? It's definitely crazy to have a Best Picture winner-- one *this* broadly appealing, too-- tucked away in a silo that only a fraction of people can access even if they want to. (Pour one out for the last Sofia Coppola movie or 'Boys State,' the latter of which would have been a documentary phenomenon if it weren't on A+.)
Tim Grierson and Will Leitch were both really high on Boys State, and it bums me out that it's siloed on Apple+. (It's not even available to rent, either, which brings up a whole new subtopic within this subject: streaming rentals)
I saw that one at True/False in the biggest theater and I don't know that I've heard a response like that for a doc before. Heading into the screening, I thought, "It's really insane how much money Apple is spending on a documentary." Then afterwards I kind of got it. (Though, as it said, I think it really damaged by being on Apple TV+.)
you're always so down on Apple TV+! I'm probably biased as it's just included in my AppleOne subscription, but I'm not really sure how you'd have them behave. They're small and growing. At some point they'll have a significant amount of content.
Do other people not cycle through the streaming services? Get Disney+ for a couple months and watch their content, move on to ATV+...
I like A+! I think there's a level of care that's pretty clearly a notch above the other streaming services, from what they finance and pick up film-wise to their TV comedies and series. And I haven't even looked at Severance and Pachinko yet. Hearing both are superb.
To be clear, I don't cast any aspersions on Apple+ other than wondering "why?" when I first heard that they were creating their own streaming service/content. Given what they've put out to this point, I don't doubt for a second that they have plenty of quality to offer, with more to come. But to answer your second question, no, I do not cycle through the services. It sounds like a lot, keeping ahead of the auto-renew and having to call someone in person to cancel, and re-track which exclusive content the latest service offers. To each her/his/their own.
I'm a member of my local film society, and I generally try to go into each weekly screening knowing nothing about the films. Obviously sometimes they'll show well-known films that already have some expectation for (if I haven't actually seen them), but most of the time I have no idea what the week's film is even called, and that is a delight to approach a film with genuinely no expectations.
As for CODA, I enjoyed it when I saw it back in September, it was a pleasant watch, but was shocked when it appeared in the list of nominees because I had completely forgotten it existed. Literally the ONLY thing I remembered about it was the horny parents - and specifically I only remembered the scene with the doctor. I had to rewatch the film to even remember that it was about her singing, or the fishing subplot. To me, a "Best Picture" winner should not be so forgettable.
I understand prioritizing other movies, but I'm curious as to why you waited until after the Oscars to finally watch CODA (a mediocre film at best, imo). I would have guessed you typically catch up with all the major nominees before the ceremony at the latest. Do you think your own viewing prioritization in this case is reflective of a diminishing significance for the Academy Awards?
I agree CODA wouldn't have made the cut if BP were still limited to five noms. And I don't think it wins if the ceremony is held in February. It was only in those final few weeks when it gained momentum. I'm not convinced many AMPAS members love the film. CODA strikes me as a major beneficiary of the ranked choice voting system, where a bland, benign feel-good movie may fare better than an auteur-driven, critically-acclaimed but polarizing one.
I think your read on the Oscar voting is correct. Ranked choice voting certainly helps films that many people can agree is *good*, but I think even normal voting procedures among a large group are going to bend toward bland consensus most of the time, which is why it's so thrilling when a 'Moonlight' or 'Parasite' happens. And yes, I didn't really go too deep into why I didn't see CODA until now, other than to say that I was prioritizing films that I felt more likely to make my Top 10 list. I didn't have an assignment connected to the film when it came out in August, and honestly, when a film is going to be siloed off forever on a streaming platform, I tend to have an "I'll get to it later" attitude.
Nevertheless, this attitude bit me in the ass hard last year, when I had assumed 'The Father' would just be a filmed play with a BIG Hopkins performance, and discovered it was extraordinary and would have made my Top 10 list easily. I'll be more diligent next year.
I think I somehow landed between Context 1 and Context 2. I knew it was nominated for BP, and I had waited to watch it until it came to my local Regal as part of their BP nominee showings. But I had avoided most of the background info on the movie: I didn't know about the $25M Sundance price tag, didn't know anything about the director, only knew the story had something to do with a deaf family, and i only recognized one actress (marlee matlin) when she showed up on screen.
With all of that (lack of) context, I enjoyed the movie quite a lot when I saw it.
Agree 100%, and not just on CODA. About Running On Empty as well. Thanks also for raising the thorny issue of how much you know, or need to know, before you watch. I'm now of the I'll-read-reviews-till-I'm-sure-it's-not-rubbish school. Perhaps it's an age thing. But I acknowledge what I've lost, the potential freshness, shock, surprise, and joy at an unimagined treasure. Nevertheless, I'll settle for why I listen to Next Picture Show and subscribed to The Reveal; I want to know what you think.
At least CODA winning means a great deal to the deaf community and does something for them in terms of exposure. I personally found it pretty weak as a film, but at this point I'm shutting up and letting those who it means something to enjoy the moment.
I saw CODA in context 2 - before it was even apparent that it would be nominated for BP, much less win. It was honestly ill-served even by that viewing experience, since I went in expecting a major work (given the Sundance reaction) and came out thinking, "This is it?"
The other factor that really affected my perception of the film was the fact that I had watched another of Apple TV+'s Sundance acquisitions the night before: Hala. CODA is a better film, but in outline, the two movies are almost identical. Really made me wonder why so many filmmakers are seemingly passionate about telling the same basic story as hundreds of other indies.
I think you've hit on a fundamental problem with CODA: It just isn't surprising in any detail. It feels like a decent version of a story that unfolds, beat for beat, like countless others.
Great article that delicately eases into the hard truth about CODA: stumbling across it as a Disney Channel Movie of the Week it's maybe a fine surprise, a Best Picture win makes it a dispiriting sign of cultural cowardice. It's not like the Oscars have been totally given over to pabulum - for every Green Book we get a Parasite, for every CODA a Moonlight. CODA owes its win to a pandemic-weakened slate as much as anything and such is the gift and curse of the ranked-tier voting system. The Power of the Dog may have gotten many of us amped, but to Campion's eternal credit I don't think she's capable of making a movie that won't find its way to the bottom half of many Academy ballots.
I think the only place the CODA is ill-served by winning Best Picture is in the opinions of people who read exemplary newsletters like the The Reveal. Among less terminally obsessed people in my life, it seems winning has helped it find an audience, which is all I hope for any movie (with the exception of the Joker/Green Book/Birdman tier of Oscar nominee). Family and co-workers like it, and they wouldn't have seen it otherwise -- that's all CODA ever asked for. That said, modern audiences should be asking for a lot more from CODA and Hollywood studios more broadly.
Wood that i' twerr... wood tha'... wood tha tih tware so sehmpal... It's complicated.
I will always hear Ralph Fiennes in my head.
I’m so glad to see RUNNING ON EMPTY explored here. I only just discovered the film this past year, in between my two viewings of CODA in fact, and it completely floored me.
Other than the higher stakes and the Lumet of it all, ROE’s central romance just destroys CODA. Martha Plymton’s Lorna could easily carry her own movie.
CODA won’t be remembered at all. Because of the slap. And possibly because this felt like the last Oscars. Movies aren’t in the zeitgeist anymore. Nobody talks about CODA around the water cooler. The Oscars are like Hockey now. If you follow you really like it and can name the last handful of Stanley Cup winners if you don’t like it you barely know it exists( and never the Twain shall meet).
Remember when people would do Forest Gump impressions or you could say “I’m the king of the world” or “I can’t quit you” and most people knew the references. I just don’t think that happens anymore.
Also we’ve always known the Oscars almost never get it right and it’s all fake. Now they can’t even serve up the illusion that it’s prestigious and that the Movies matter because they got Twitter Polls and celebrities fighting on stage. It’s reality TV. In the internet age: movies, people getting slapped, books, any culture at all is just Hockey. If you follow it you like, if you don’t, it doesn’t even show up in your feed. CODA is fine. The Oscars are dead.
Additional point to consider: since CODA's win for Best Picture (+other top-tier Academy Awards), I can grok that a lot more people have and will come to it out of genuine interest, now that it won The Film Award most (Americans) care about. But this returns to an issue I brought up before about Turning Red, and I suspect this won't go away... if each of these marquee movies get snatched up by exclusive deals on major streaming services, and if they are also not supported by physical release/distribution somehow, what remains of our shared cinephilia? Do we completely forsake accessing the same films? I get that before we simply made choices what to watch/not to watch if it was out on the rental market or re-run on cable, but I don't see everyone opening accounts to all the major streaming services available. Outside of film/tv reviewers, I don't know anybody who has all of the following: Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, HBO Max, Disney+ and Apple+ (the best I can say is that I know some with 3-4 of the six). There are going to be major films - awards winners among them - that simply cannot be watched in many households, and we're just going to shrug and move forward with that?
I have all of those but a) I’m in the business and b) I write all that off my taxes. For those who aren’t me this is an excellent point. I remember being out of the conversation for a bunch of 90s shows because I didn’t have HBO. This is that same issue compounded by an ever growing number of services.
Wow! Interesting - that makes so much sense, though. I have wondered about that with film reviewers today, since um, others besides you two that I uh, "hear/read about" seem to also have access to all the streaming services for all the new movies that get released. Yet sadly, I'm also aware that film criticism isn't a lucrative profession (for the actual critic, that is) so I wondered how they got by. Appreciate the comments from you both and the relevant tidbit especially!
"What remains of our shared cinephilia?" The question haunts me, and extends to other things like a shared understanding of basic realities in the world. But I digress! I've been fortunate lately to be present for some pretty special public screenings-- a crowded matinee of Moonstruck with my 14yo, last week's awesome Cage double feature (Matchstick Men and Face/Off) to launch Keith's book, and a raucous Sunday show of 'Everything Everywhere All at Once'-- and it's been a fine opportunity to reconnect with my favorite pastime. And I'm certainly happy to have this newsletter and forum to talk to others who share my passion. But you're correct that film, even more than TV, is feeling awfully diffuse right now, and it's not affordable for everyone to have all these services.
I already bit off a large enough chunk of CODA, but how many people have Apple TV+? It's definitely crazy to have a Best Picture winner-- one *this* broadly appealing, too-- tucked away in a silo that only a fraction of people can access even if they want to. (Pour one out for the last Sofia Coppola movie or 'Boys State,' the latter of which would have been a documentary phenomenon if it weren't on A+.)
Tim Grierson and Will Leitch were both really high on Boys State, and it bums me out that it's siloed on Apple+. (It's not even available to rent, either, which brings up a whole new subtopic within this subject: streaming rentals)
I saw that one at True/False in the biggest theater and I don't know that I've heard a response like that for a doc before. Heading into the screening, I thought, "It's really insane how much money Apple is spending on a documentary." Then afterwards I kind of got it. (Though, as it said, I think it really damaged by being on Apple TV+.)
you're always so down on Apple TV+! I'm probably biased as it's just included in my AppleOne subscription, but I'm not really sure how you'd have them behave. They're small and growing. At some point they'll have a significant amount of content.
Do other people not cycle through the streaming services? Get Disney+ for a couple months and watch their content, move on to ATV+...
I like A+! I think there's a level of care that's pretty clearly a notch above the other streaming services, from what they finance and pick up film-wise to their TV comedies and series. And I haven't even looked at Severance and Pachinko yet. Hearing both are superb.
To be clear, I don't cast any aspersions on Apple+ other than wondering "why?" when I first heard that they were creating their own streaming service/content. Given what they've put out to this point, I don't doubt for a second that they have plenty of quality to offer, with more to come. But to answer your second question, no, I do not cycle through the services. It sounds like a lot, keeping ahead of the auto-renew and having to call someone in person to cancel, and re-track which exclusive content the latest service offers. To each her/his/their own.
I'm a member of my local film society, and I generally try to go into each weekly screening knowing nothing about the films. Obviously sometimes they'll show well-known films that already have some expectation for (if I haven't actually seen them), but most of the time I have no idea what the week's film is even called, and that is a delight to approach a film with genuinely no expectations.
As for CODA, I enjoyed it when I saw it back in September, it was a pleasant watch, but was shocked when it appeared in the list of nominees because I had completely forgotten it existed. Literally the ONLY thing I remembered about it was the horny parents - and specifically I only remembered the scene with the doctor. I had to rewatch the film to even remember that it was about her singing, or the fishing subplot. To me, a "Best Picture" winner should not be so forgettable.
I understand prioritizing other movies, but I'm curious as to why you waited until after the Oscars to finally watch CODA (a mediocre film at best, imo). I would have guessed you typically catch up with all the major nominees before the ceremony at the latest. Do you think your own viewing prioritization in this case is reflective of a diminishing significance for the Academy Awards?
I agree CODA wouldn't have made the cut if BP were still limited to five noms. And I don't think it wins if the ceremony is held in February. It was only in those final few weeks when it gained momentum. I'm not convinced many AMPAS members love the film. CODA strikes me as a major beneficiary of the ranked choice voting system, where a bland, benign feel-good movie may fare better than an auteur-driven, critically-acclaimed but polarizing one.
I think your read on the Oscar voting is correct. Ranked choice voting certainly helps films that many people can agree is *good*, but I think even normal voting procedures among a large group are going to bend toward bland consensus most of the time, which is why it's so thrilling when a 'Moonlight' or 'Parasite' happens. And yes, I didn't really go too deep into why I didn't see CODA until now, other than to say that I was prioritizing films that I felt more likely to make my Top 10 list. I didn't have an assignment connected to the film when it came out in August, and honestly, when a film is going to be siloed off forever on a streaming platform, I tend to have an "I'll get to it later" attitude.
Nevertheless, this attitude bit me in the ass hard last year, when I had assumed 'The Father' would just be a filmed play with a BIG Hopkins performance, and discovered it was extraordinary and would have made my Top 10 list easily. I'll be more diligent next year.
I think I somehow landed between Context 1 and Context 2. I knew it was nominated for BP, and I had waited to watch it until it came to my local Regal as part of their BP nominee showings. But I had avoided most of the background info on the movie: I didn't know about the $25M Sundance price tag, didn't know anything about the director, only knew the story had something to do with a deaf family, and i only recognized one actress (marlee matlin) when she showed up on screen.
With all of that (lack of) context, I enjoyed the movie quite a lot when I saw it.
Agree 100%, and not just on CODA. About Running On Empty as well. Thanks also for raising the thorny issue of how much you know, or need to know, before you watch. I'm now of the I'll-read-reviews-till-I'm-sure-it's-not-rubbish school. Perhaps it's an age thing. But I acknowledge what I've lost, the potential freshness, shock, surprise, and joy at an unimagined treasure. Nevertheless, I'll settle for why I listen to Next Picture Show and subscribed to The Reveal; I want to know what you think.
At least CODA winning means a great deal to the deaf community and does something for them in terms of exposure. I personally found it pretty weak as a film, but at this point I'm shutting up and letting those who it means something to enjoy the moment.
I saw CODA in context 2 - before it was even apparent that it would be nominated for BP, much less win. It was honestly ill-served even by that viewing experience, since I went in expecting a major work (given the Sundance reaction) and came out thinking, "This is it?"
The other factor that really affected my perception of the film was the fact that I had watched another of Apple TV+'s Sundance acquisitions the night before: Hala. CODA is a better film, but in outline, the two movies are almost identical. Really made me wonder why so many filmmakers are seemingly passionate about telling the same basic story as hundreds of other indies.
I think you've hit on a fundamental problem with CODA: It just isn't surprising in any detail. It feels like a decent version of a story that unfolds, beat for beat, like countless others.