Just a few hours away from the Goya gala, all the fish is sold. The academics are already clear about their vote and the spectator (you and I) has their favorites and is not willing to compromise. After the debate will come on about the winner. Anticipating this and playing the role of that grumpy guy we all have or an angry critic, we will analyze the five Goya nominees for best film based on why they should NOT win. Without wishing to offend and using the cliché that having arrived here is already winning, there are the reasons why the Goya I should not go to …
CHAMPIONS, by Javier Fesser
The best (and the worst) thing that can be said about the Fesser film is that it is "uncriticable": from the beginning its "dramatis personae", its positioning and its message annul the debate. As with the cinematic phrase "who can kill a child", we are unable to criticize a film starring disabled. This endearing and even good factor makes us go over the shortcomings of this "feel good movie": a tendency to the guiñolización always present in the cinema of Fesser, a script that exalts the difference in a tendentious way (disabled, elderly and women are saved there where it is moribund hetero male middle-aged), a humor that wants to be hooligan staying in its appearance and the obligatory inclusion of aspects of the daily-labor existence of the characters in plan "do not think that their lives are laughter".
Of course, we will never go so far as to say that his tremendous public success discards it for prestigious grand prizes, for the same reason that we do not believe that lady who told Hemingway that he was "too handsome to be a good writer" . Instead, we will say that his success as a public and critic have inflated the globe to the point of making it the most nominated of the Goya and throwing it (without success) to the race for the Oscar. From abroad they have been able to see more dispassionately the shortcomings of "Champions". An example: "The noble intentions of this film are not enough to digest his epic poem" (Gaspar Zimerman, "Diario Clarín").
THE KINGDOM, by Rodrigo Sorogoyen
What makes Sorogoyen a virtuous director and recognizable personality is also what can be lost. And in his portrait of the widespread corruption in Spain and in the soul of each of us are both the pros and the cons of the filmmaker and his co-writer, Isabel Peña. The first, and in general, is the discretion of your choices: Sorogoyen is able to make a solvent and even outstanding film of anything except something that you think only he can do. That is to say, he is a great director but not an author. That of having "a world of your own" does not go with it, for the good and the bad.
A "The kingdom", which is dynamic, ambitious and entertaining, it has left over the underscore of the message that "you could be a corrupt", the self-complacent and tribune appeal to the television news collection (those politicians clearly recognizable peperos, those imitations rather than recreations of characters and situations) and the constant and sometimes irritating need of Sorogoyen to put himself above good and evil and, especially, mark the territory of his technical virtuosity.
Already put, an addendum: Why Antonio de la Torre is applauded more his ability to lose his temper, his histrionics, than his statism, which also dominates to perfection?
CARMEN AND LOLA, by Arantxa Echevarría
Women, gypsies and lesbians OK, but now what? It is not good to place the explosive material and look at it and look at it. You have to make it explode in each one of the spectators to generate the detonation, the empathy, even with who is totally removed from the group involved. That is the problem of "Carmen y Lola", by Arantxa Echevarría. As the critic of this newspaper Sergi Sánchez pointed out, "it turns the ethnographic view of the Roma community and its codes of repression into the reason for their existence" but "anchors his characters in an archetypal characterization, from which truthless dialogs are derived". Well, that.
EVERYBODY KNOWS, by Asghar Farhadi
We love Asghar Farhadi and we are pleased that he chooses Spain and Spain to choose him to do projects here. But In the journey from his native Iran to a village in the deep Castile, the director has left the magical powders of subtlety, that way so yours to take the spectator to the disaster without realizing it, without leaving the kitchen.
Farhadi performs a conventional "thriller" with "Everyone knows it", a mystery with disappearance and a villain to find. A cluedo type Agatha Christie in La Mancha that eats and laps a deeper message about truth and lies. Pity. In his great tapes ("A separation", for example), the Iranian does not need "mcguffins" so obvious and vulgar. The contradictions of the Iranian society serve on a tray a tone and a theme that has exploited in a great way. In the Spain of "Everyone knows", in addition, almodovarian costumbrismo and melodramatic excess (also almodovariano) ballast the tape.
That Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem are great we also know, but is not the flattery exaggerated? There we left it.
BETWEEN TWO WATERS, by Isaki Lacuesta
Just as a tracksuit does not fit into a gala dinner, a tuxedo tuck into a picnic. That is to say, the film by Isaki Lacuesta, the winner of the Concha de Oro, has two large sizes, the Goya. And this really would not be a criticism, but almost a compliment. But anyway… The greatest demerit of "Between two waters" is its scarce power of attraction for the average public, its self-indulgence with a very defined and specific audience and its rejoicing in the exceptionality of the proposal.
The extreme realism, perhaps naturalism, of this portrait of two brothers from the underworld of the Island of San Fernando, I could not satisfy the desire for escapism of the average viewer. And, of coda, a criticism for the Film Academy: Did not Israel Gómez Romero deserve a nomination and even a Goya for its excellent interpretation of someone who, yes, could be, is he himself?