Hollywood is branching out in many different directions that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is simply not built to support, and definitely not evolving alongside. There is not much wiggle room in terms of where the Oscar race has been going up to this, its 88th year of handing out awards to the “highest achievements in film.” It supports what it supports – which is usually the traditionally drama, the handsomely mounted period piece, or a film that invests heavily in actors and character developments. Actors like to work and they like supporting films that showcase their work. They do not appreciate being “replaced” by CGI, nor superhero movies pretending to be real films. But. They are simply not keeping up with the continuously evolving film industry. They continue their message of “make movies we like, present them to us, and we will reward those.”
For some inexplicable reason the Academy only offered members ten nomination slots for two years, in 2009 and 2010. The thing that prevented them from keeping that tradition was the old-time Academy guard. If you’ve ever met one of those voters or spoken to one you would see how rigidly they hold on to the old way of doing things. Why pick ten? Ten only invites more mediocrity, one told me once. But ten actually saves them from themselves. How do we know this? It’s easy. Once they reduced the nomination slots for Best Picture back down to five their Best Picture lineup narrowed to exclude any kind of film that wasn’t “their” kind of movie. They allowed for more than five, those that narrowly missed the top five, but that still doesn’t solve the problem of 6,000 or so mostly middle-aged, mostly white males choosing their top five films of the year.
When you’re talking about top five, you’re talking about films people LOVED as opposed to films that were, perhaps, a little more challenging, a little more dark, too genre-y, animated, films about women, films directed by women, films about subjects that don’t appeal to white men like Fruitvale Station, or Nightcrawler, or Gone Girl, or even Foxcatcher. The slightest discomfort means it’s off their top five.
It isn’t working. No one thinks it’s working. Almost everyone thinks they should go back to a solid five or a solid ten and stop with this nonsense of pretending they have more nomination slots than they actually do. Their narrow-minded thinking is what is holding them back from embracing the new.
Probably no film will test the limits of this method of choosing “best” than Anomalisa (review forthcoming), one of the year’s standouts without a doubt, and a film that will likely be stuffed into the animated category where it will likely lose to Inside Out. Inside Out is the perfect film to win in the animated category – it does everything an animated film should do and more. Anomalisa is a different kind of thing entirely. It has full frontal puppet nudity – both male and female. It is deeply moving, and, like the other masterpiece that has dropped this year Beasts of No Nation, utterly uncompromising. Putting it, like so much of Charlie Kaufman’s work, into this sick little world of film awards greatly diminishes its magic because there is no place for it. There might be a place for it on the top five ballots but probably those five slots will go to more traditional, actor-driven pieces (the numbers in actors branch are almost double every other branch and dominates, in all ways).
With ten nominating slots, voters have more breathing room and flexibility to work against their own worst (and sometimes best) instincts – to vote with other organs besides the heart. Ten slots would mean they would say yes to an animated film like Anomalisa, maybe even alongside Inside Out, maybe Mad Max, maybe Star Wars, maybe Beasts of No Nation. They have room to expand past their own comfort zone and choose films that really do reflect the best of the year because the best of the year films that Academy members like best is an ever shrinking pile, that shrinks more and more as we start checking off what “they” won’t go for.
Why does it matter if the Academy chooses Anomalisa or Beasts of No Nation as the year’s best?
Because they are the year’s best. Anyone who gives Anomalisa a bad review is not to be trusted. It is not a matter of opinion, that film’s greatness. They can say they “didn’t like it.” They can be put off by the puppet sex but there is no one out there getting paid to write film reviews who can say that is not one of the year’s best films.
Because it’s hard to get people to watch movies anymore. It’s hard for any movie that isn’t a tent pole or driven by a big name director to make any money at all. Film awards are one way to bring awareness to films people might not take a chance on. That is true of the best films of this year because they are unique. They defy “branding.” They stand apart and can’t be easily explained. They don’t feed the Academy voters what they crave: confirmation that they and they alone matter. They push the limits of what artists are allowed to do in film anymore. A vote for a film like Anomalisa or Beasts of No Nation or Inside Out even, or Mad Max says those films matter. Maybe they don’t make us feel warm and fuzzy and good about ourselves, but do we matter more than art? Do we? Let’s be honest about if that’s the case and change the name of “Best Picture” to “Best Mirror Mirror On the Wall.”
There is no use in saying it anymore. I really feel like they do themselves, the Academy, a great disservice by limiting the number of Best Picture nominees to five ballots. They do a great disservice to the artists out there who are trying to do something different with their work. They do a great disservice to us, the consumers, who are asked to be interested in their show and their choices every year. We, the consumers who are asked to pay big money to see what Hollywood puts out, big and small, in sickness and in health, til death do us part. We enter a contract with the Oscars and with Hollywood but we’re at a point where what we the consumers says doesn’t matter.
In other words, all I want for Christmas is a ten nomination ballot for voters. They can still pick five if they want but for those who have seen everything, give them a chance to pick ten. When one of our greatest talents in film, Charlie Kaufman, has a hard time getting anything made film awards can sometimes make the difference, or at least I hope they do.
There choices for nominations and winners need to change. They need better picks for nominations, and they need to think more thoughtfully about the movie industry and where it’s headed if they keep doing things the way they are now. I agree with this article, very well done.
I dunno about the other two but I’m definitely championing Inside Out for Best Picture! With a score of 93 from the BFCA it definitely has to be considered a contender at least. In other news Bridge of Spies now has a score of 86 so it should officially be in the running as well. Nice to see Spielberg back in the picture!
In 2009 I thought the ten slots for Best Picture was a wonderful decision and I maintain that sentiment today. To be honest, it makes little sense to not have at least that many spots because the sheer amount of films released in theaters (or through other platforms) annually has grown considerably over the last decade. I’ve seen nearly 160 new films this year to date for example, and that doesn’t begin to cover the entire slate of 2015.
Just thinking about the possibilities is enough to get me excited. Could you imagine another year like ’09? (Which had films District 9, A Serious Man, and Up sitting side by side with Avatar and The Hurt Locker.)
Precisely.
No, Sasha; all you need is SIX.
The Arthouse Crowd: The Walk, Steve Jobs, Love and Mercy
The Mainstream: The Force Awakens; Mockingjay 2; Kingsman: The Secret Service
If the first 2 don’t pan out with critics, and I mean anything < 90 on RT and MC, then Straight Outta Compton and Furious 7 get subbed in.
Mockingjay? Kingsman? Furious 7? Seriously? For Best Picture? No Way!
I’d rather see Force Awakens (that’s if Metacritic gives it a 87) or Compton in the lineup.
BTW, RT and Metacritic score are stones away different. And most Best Picture winners have to merit a score above 86.
Yes, Mockingjay 2. There’s been great buzz about how the final Hunger Games sticks to the starkness and grimness of the novel. I’m sick and goddamned tired of the Oscars mimicking the effing Indie Spirits.
And I’m sick and goddamned tired of people who think the Oscars should be the People’s Choice Awards
NOBODY, least of all, me, is saying that, and I’m getting a little tired of hearing that STRAWMAN argument. It was disingenuous the first time and it will be disingenuous forevermore. You read what you want to read, thats the only explanation. I want BALANCE arthouse vs mainstream on Oscar night. That’s it. My position hasn’t changed in a decade on this.
Sasha – I just noticed that Inside Out joined the Best Picture tracker party after being left off not only that list… but practically every Best Picture prediction article you’ve written in the last few weeks (including your #1-20 list in said articles…) What gives? (I’m thrilled, by the way….)
Both “Inside Out” and “Mad Max: Fury Road” would be on my top 10 films any given year I can remember. It’s really hard to know neither, despite their universal acclaim by audiences and critics alike, has a real shot to be nom’d in a Best Picture quintet.
The 2015 yearbook for me has been about animation, women and smart, exciting action blockbusters. This would be a great year for 10 best pictures as in 2010 when we had The Kids Are All Right, Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3 and Inception or 2009 when we had District 9, Up, An Education and Precious – animation, action and films with more diversity mixed in with your traditional Oscar voter stuff. Agree Sasha – 10 best pictures is the only way to stay relevant if they want the people (the audience) to care about their dog and pony show and if they want to respect the artists of their ever-evolving industry. #gobackto10
Yep.
I’ve always thought “10” was best. 5 almost always included 1 or 2 stinkers. 5-9 just feels sloppy. “10” means that a few might very well get in that would’ve never had a chance, and/or might be very interesting additions.
Since 2010, we’ve only had one REALLY good Best Picture lineup (2013, when they managed to nominate 5 of my top 10), alongside 2011 (aside from Tree of Life, not too great), 2012 (aside from Django, not too great), and 2014 (which…yeah).
Moving away from a fixed 10 was just a bad move. Doing it so soon after the expansion just made the Academy look irresolute.
Academy voting feels more and more like political voting. You stick with what you know and whatever party you aline with after whatever contestants have duked it out amongst the most passionate, or crazy obsessive, followers. If nothing really caught your attention, you just mark a box and go, “Whatever,” even though your future may be on the line no matter what.
The other day I showed my parents the newest Star Wars trailer, and my mom’s first comment was “That was a lot of explosions.” Nothing about the blending of old and new. Nothing about how a girl is seemingly the center of the most anticipated movie in ages. Nothing about how a lot is shown yet the plot remains a mystery. Granted, my mom is not a fanboy. She is not going to go crazy over a trailer even if it is frickin Star Wars. However, that encapsulates the central problem, not just with the Academy, not just with any given moviegoer but people in general. How can you expect anyone to seriously weigh in when they do not feel invested. The fact it is their profession does not matter anymore than politics does to a citizen even though IT TOTALLY SHOULD! To be invested means sifting through the bull shit. You can listen to comments and fellow voters, but unless you feel the urge to weigh in yourself, nothing is going to change.
An actor will pay attention to the loudest voice in animation like Inside Out, much like a Democrat paying attention to Donald Trump. That does not mean they would ever vote for it in a general race because it is too far from their comfort zone. Yes, it is ridiculous comparing Inside Out to Donald Trump, but that is the size of the chasm separating actors and animators. It is only when the one on the opposite side of the chasm is a celebrity with billions of dollars, which Trump and Inside Out do have in common, that the two sides acknowledge one another.
I am a movie lover, but also an anime fan. I try my best to recommend and gain acknowledgement for anime I know would resonate with a lot more people, but I know most often I will fall on deaf ears because most people, even when they love animation, do not have the time or the interest to see them despite being a click away. Even so, I keep trying because I love anime. I love all movies, which is why I care about opinions like these. I feel the love for what cinema can bring regardless of whether the right people regard it or not. And maybe someday, they will.
I can only hope Anomalisa gains whatever recognition it deserves. (I cannot speak for it specifically since I have not seen it yet.) With any luck, maybe it causes more people to take animation seriously, and that will lead more people to acknowledge the anime I love as well. Maybe, someday, I can look teary eyed as a movie like the one below gains wider acceptance by moviegoers. One can hope. Always hope.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eXRh1bwIr8
At the risk of being “that guy” again, can I point out how hypocritical this sounds considering your own unbridled praise of something like BRIDGE OF SPIES?
“There is not much wiggle room in terms of where the Oscar race has been going up to this, its 88th year of handing out awards to the “highest achievements in film.” It supports what it supports – which is usually the traditionally drama, the handsomely mounted period piece, or one that invests heavily in actors and character developments.”
Although your love of Spielberg is matched in equal measure by your praise of something bolder like BEASTS OF NO NATION, I simply take issue with your disdain for the taste of The Academy when in many ways your own taste matches it. The Academy has continued to embrace films like BoS, but also embraces less traditional fare like BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, too. And if you continue to devote your own attention and predictions to the traditional fare then that is what your peers will continue to talk about and what Oscar voters will continue to vote for.
You can write as many think-pieces about how The Academy needs to change as you want, but until pundits stop trying to be right and start predicting bolder titles and bolder performances–truly pushing them into the conversation and into their punditry–then Oscar voters just won’t pay attention to them. You write all these great things about how Oscar voting can be improved, but then you follow it up with a post about your predictions where you revert back to the mentality of what you just rallied against.
As a watcher on the sidelines, it’s frustrating.
Bridge of Spies is a great film. There are movies in the race this year that are made specifically for Academy voters. While Bridge of Spies IS in their wheelhouse it is anything but mediocre and lazy – it doesn’t appeal to guys who dominate the film blogger and film criticism scene, perhaps, but they aren’t in line with the Academy either. I would never want to fulfill THAT agenda. With ten you can honor films like Bridge of Spies and films like Anomalisa. With five you will only get one kind of movie and of that kind of movie Bridge of Spies (and Brooklyn) are the best.
I don’t have “disdain” for the Academy. They are doing the best they can under the circumstances. A consensus vote is a consensus vote – it’s not 40 hipsters in a room picking the most obtuse. It’s broad spectrum. Having 10 nominees helps them to broaden that slate.
I agree that 10 nomination slots helps broaden the slate. My concern, however, is that there are other ways to prod on-the-fence voters toward choosing bolder titles in the five slots they’re currently given. My argument is that pundits with audiences–like you,Tapley and Poland, as examples–stop trying to be right and start trying to make a difference through your predictions.
At what point is the field narrowed down for Oscar voters? Surely the first step in the awards race is consultants assessing which films are being talked about, which films pundits are predicting and from there putting money into campaigns for those films. Leave ROOM off your top 10 predictions and A24 believes less in their chances. Put ANOMALISA in your predictions and Paramount tries harder.
Love it or hate it, INTERSTELLAR had chances at a BP nomination last year, but it was tanked by pundits who saw it and left it off of their predictions, for whatever reason, and it went from a contender to a non-player. This, I believe, is the power AwardsDaily and its peers have. But that power is harnessed in risky predictions, not in safe ones.
CAROL should be leading everyone’s predictions, for many reasons, but none of the pundits seem to believe in it and it’s going to be a sad fucking day when it gets 10 less Oscar nominations than it deserves.
I see what you’re saying, Benutty. But I actually think Sasha does a pretty good job each year including a handful of predictions that DO have little chance for a BP/acting nom, but more like wishful thinking and/or a ‘take that!’ voters.
as for BRIDGE OF SPIES–it’s a fine film, but not a challenging one and definitely not an innovative one. For all the script gets right, the “post-9/11 terrorism” metaphor is rather blase at this point.
the “post-9/11 terrorism” metaphor is rather blase at this point.
It’s more than that. It goes to the core of what America is supposed to stand for.
The fact that post-9/11 panic fucked up those ideals is incidental to appreciating Bridge of Spies. There are parallels but the fact that the parallels span 50 fucking years sort of dispels the argument that it’s all blase and moot in 2015.
It’s ongoing. Panic and paranoia threaten to wreck a nation’s high ideals in a continual struggle between what’s just and right and what’s knee-jerk clumsy reactionary.
The fact that this lesson is never learned — or learned and then forgotten — is the entire reason to reteach it.
I think your point that the parallels span 50 years of American history is a good one, Ryan. And makes me consider again my “blase” comment.
I suppose a lot of my frustration with the film comes from how too-on-the-nose the script feels at times, and very much from the many call-backs presented at the end–like the aforementioned (by someone else) fence-jumping scenes, or the getting-a-cold-in-a-Cold-War-film, or the repeated declarations of wanting his bed leading to him coming home and passing out… on his bed. For all of the script’s intelligence there are equal measures of very amateur writing.
40 hipsters in a room picking the most obtuse would be a hell of an improvement
Is this the year of animations? I mean, Inside Out and Anomalisa are instant classics to me. And if The Good Dinosaur is as good as them…
Depending on the greatness of the unseen (The Good Dinossaur, Peanuts, Joy, Revenant and Hateful Eight) and the choices the Academy makes, we could easily have a better Animated Feature category than a Best Picture category.
Where did my comment go ?