Not to be always delivering bad news but it’s remarkable how the Oscar race feels like a ghost town. Much of that is due to the snubbing of the year’s most popular film. Yes, quietly AMPAS is probably snickering about it all, trying hard to remember what the point of the Oscars is in the first place and whether or not the telecast will one day be on cable rather than the networks. It isn’t about the telecast, nor the ratings, nor the box office – I know, I know, it’s about pure cinema! Anyway, the Carpetbagger went down to Times Square to report something, anything in the ghost town and here is what he found:
In years past, two weeks before the Oscars, people of all stripes and incarnations were more than happy to talk about this movie or that role, that favorite actress, and who might win. But even though many of the people strolling around the so-called crossroads of America were there at their leisure, the idea that they would care or worry about movies at a time like this seemed preposterous to the people the Bagger queried. At first the Bagger thought that it was just his usual Kryptonite version of reporting, in which strangers are frightened by his approach. But it became clear that what was going on was tonal in nature, that things like the Oscars, against the backdrop of a recession, just don’t seem worth talking about. In 90 minutes in the Square with countless intercepts and queries, the Bagger got precisely six people to talk to him. One person who waved him off even hissed, “You’re asking me about what, the Oscars?”
The Bagger suggests that hard times in America are the main reason for the lack of interest:
Those of us who live in the Oscar Ninny kingdom might have missed something. While we were all debating the whole Mickey vs. Sean thing, the rest of America has been out there living life on life’s terms, which has not been a pleasant endeavor of late.
That’s as good a reason as any. I’ll buy that. At least it doesn’t put the blame on the films. But I do know people who are slowing coming out and buying movie tickets and the adults still want to see the Oscar movies. It is just taking them some time to get there. In my experience, a select group of people are interested in the Oscar race except when a popular movie is in the race — like Return of the King, Gladiator, Titanic, etc. There’s always next year.
58 Responses for "The Washed Out Season"
The thing is, even in this economic depression, people are going to the movies in record numbers. Just look at January’s Billion dollar take and how successful this past weekend was at the box office, a trend that will surely continue into March and April.
The disconnect however is how few people are seeing the Oscar nominated films. There have been dozens of article written about it across the internets but this tiny factoid sums it up quite nicley:
There Will Be Blood, with its 158 minute run time, set in an era long gone, with its violence and religion and Kubrick-esque qualities, grossed over $40 Million dollars domestically.
Milk, Frost/Nixon, and The Reader COMBINED, $56 Million.
It’s not “the economy, stupid.” It’s “the movies, stupid.”
People have bad taste. What can I say? Look at how much Paul Blart: Mall Cop has made. Ok, I get it. Kevin James is fat and has a mustache. I eagerly awaiting the sequel where Paul Blart is made an honorary member of the Royal Guard…and he’s still fat.
I concur. Most people I’ve spoken to have no interest in the nominated films this year. They may be the right choices for AMPAS, but are not appealing to regular film goers at this time.
Also, I think most people would like to see a popular film like TDK or Wall-E in the big races every now and then, so I think there was some disappointment.
Oscar snubbed this year’s “most popular film”?? Get over it! The Oscars isn’t a box office contest. That’s the job of the People’s Choice. Maybe you should start a People’s Choise Award blog instead.
Everyone I know is excited about this year’s Oscars. Especially since, for once, there might be some great music performed by AR Rahman and a great movie will be honored – Slumdog Millionaire!
Does anyone know if AMC Movie theatre is going to do the all-day Oscar movie day? In Chicago last year they set aside a Saturday for all the Oscar movies. We could buy a ticket for about $25-30 and stay in and go from theatre to theatre watching the movies.
I thought it was a good idea to generate interest.
Sally, amctheatres.com/promos/showcase
I thought the Bagger post was right on. There’s just a combination of factors that make this year uninteresting, even to those of us who are usually Oscar junkies. Everyone’s dealing with layoffs, we have a new president to distract us, it just seems like people aren’t making small talk about movies these days. Add to that the list of nominated films. There’s nothing to get excited about. I’m not sure it would have mattered if TDK or Wall-E were in the BP mix. I think people have gotten used to the glut of “boring and serious” awards films around the holidays and they’re either into them or they’re not. It wasn’t a great year for movies and it’s not a great year for Oscars.
Sally, yes AMC will be showing all 5 Best Picture nominees (well atleast here in New York). I believe for 30 bucks you get to see all 5 movies and you get a bottomless tub of popcorn.
Harry no one I know could give a rat’s ass about the Oscar. It’s lonely being an Oscar watcher here in Brooklyn. You know what the #1 question I get when I mention the Oscars to any of my friends?? “Was The Dark Knight nominated?” (well there was one friend who asked about Gran Torino – we’re no longer friends…) So yea it is the movies.
JJ Jones – You should pitch your sequel idea to the studio. It sounds like a craptastic idea!
I agree: Harry is fortunate indeed to have friends who give a rat’s ass about this year’s picture nominees. Let’s forget about them all and look to next year. WATCHMEN for best picture!
Outside of people who are normally interested in Oscar season and the type of movies that dominate the oscar nomination, it takes something big like Lord of the Rings, Titanic or Gladiator to get the average moviegoer(who obviously is not paying to see the majority of Best Picture nominees) to care about the Oscars. The ratings prove that. Otherwise, most average moviegoers who would rather sit through Mall Cop than Milk, are not going to watch or be interested.
The Dark Knight should not have been nominated for that reason alone; However, it is rare that the average moviegoer and the type that sees any film that gets good reviews and oscar buzz agree on something and the majority of both groups loved The Dark Knight, making it a movie that should have been nominated, as it transcended entertainment and became something much more to critics and all moviegoers. It truly seems like the Academy is out of touch on this and it has taken away from my interest in the Oscars slightly(although I loved Milk and Slumdog and hope one of them wins).
It seems to me america is just getting exponentially unenlightened, in times of economic crisis, people need to value the arts more, not less. To me not seeing the good films this year, is just america rearing its true colors, becoming feral while their pockets drop. The arts are taking a hit while the country is choking on its material excess… I think it is poetic license. America deserves paul blart mall cop
What movie needs to be nominated in January 2010 to ensure a spike in the Oscar telecast ratings?
Big names help like: Johnny Depp, Martin Scorsese, popular films like Public Enemies (or at least I’m expecting that to be a big hit, it’s coming out on July 4th weekend wouldn’t that be something if it tanked, lol).
Well none of the five biggest (expected) box office draws can be called Best Picture bait: Star Trek, Transformers 2, Wolverine, Avatar, or Watchmen.
Would Watchmen or Avatar have the best chance? Avatar would be too sci-fi & the whole 3D-ness of it makes it a long shot & Watchmen could have ridden a comic book wave but what’s the chance of that now when The Dark Knight PGA, WGA, & DGA nominated gets snubbed in all of those categories.
The problem isn’t a desire to see them. It’s knowledge that they are out there. Of the people coming to my Oscar Party this year, probably four were aware of the nominated films and only because I was talking them up! Here in South Florida, I have yet to see a TV commercial for “Slumdog Millionaire” or “The Reader”. I’ve seen a handful of commercials for “Frost/Nixon” and even fewer for “Milk”. Awareness is a big issue. “Milk” opened in early November and I had to wait until early February for it to open in my market. You can’t get excited about films you don’t know about. There is more to the world than NY, LA & Chicago. Oscar buzz is great but at this point it’s only generating interest in the DVD release.
I still struggle with most people treating AMPAS as a single person or a small group of people who get together to decide the nominations. There are tons of members (I should know how many, but I don’t). Absent voter tampering, the body doesn’t get together to say “Okay, we’re going to split the body into 5 groups. Group A votes for Slumdog, Group B votes for Frost, Group C votes for Reader, Group D votes for Curious, and Group E votes for Milk. That way, we’ll be sure that Dark Knight doesn’t get nominated.” Each movie has it’s supporters – who knows, maybe The Dark Knight lost out to The Reader by one vote. If you look at it individually, I think people voted for what they thought was the best. What movie do you think Meryl Streep voted for? Would she have put Doubt up as her first choice for Best Picture? I think she’d vote for the movie she thought was the best (and hopefully, not Doubt). I don’t think the individual artists involved are out to “get” any move or help the ratings by voting a certain way. I’m sure The Dark Knight has a tons of fans in the Academy – just not enough to push it into the top 5 based on how they vote. Would you vote for a movie you didn’t like because you thought it would improve the ratings of the broadcast? Of course not. I’m sure the producers of the show were hoping beyond hope that The Dark Knight would get nominated, but they have to put on the best show they can with the cards they were dealt. As far as the lack of interest, I think that’s been in the works for a long time. There’s an award show on every weekend. It’s a watered down product. Every group gives out awards, and several are televised. Most of my friends ask me to explain the difference – SAG vs. Golden Globes, etc. The Oscars is the granddaddy of the them all, though, and still has some clout, just not like in the old days.
Matt, I like your theory of Awards fatigue. Indeed it seems like every week there is an awards show naming the “Best” something. Maybe to the general movie going audience, the Oscars have just become another awards show.
#11:
> “It seems to me america is just getting exponentially unenlightened, in times of economic crisis, people need to value the arts more, not less.”
That’s assuming the arts are worth valuing. So many films are (as Laura Linney recently stated) written not to be filmed but to be greenlit. And I bet a lot of the Oscar films have been carefully crafted to be just that: Oscar films. Hollywood isn’t really a good place for art — it’s a business, and we need to realize that the films we see are coming out of that system.
In some ways, we could argue that the film industry is PART OF the reason Americans are becoming less enlightened. After all, think how many films are designed either to appeal to the masses or to win awards. There’s not much room in either of those situations for films to say anything enlightening.
Stuart,
You bring up a great point. I wanted to see Milk when it was released in November, but it did not come here until Super Bowl Weekend. I rushed out and saw it and I am glad I did because all the area theaters removed it the following week. Frost/Nixon and The Reader seemed to lose screens pretty fast too. It certainly does not help these films when no one can see them.
The problem is the average moviegoer does not go to the movies to see fine cinema. They go to eat popcorn and hang out with their friends. It’s sad but true. They don’t want to think. They go out to get away from their lives in the worst way. The smarter the movies get, the less they want to see them. You don’t munch popcorn like it’s your worst enemy if you want to hear dialogue. They don’t. They probably never did. They like to GO TO the movies, but they don’t necessarily LIKE MOVIES.
You ever tried asking a normal person who has seen a complex film to explain it back to you? They don’t know what happened. Not because they’re stupid, they just weren’t paying attention. They don’t go to the movies to pay attention. That’s why normal “folks” hate foreign films. They’re not going to read. That’s work.
And if they want to have a Calgon moment how does watching a washed up banged up athlete whose daughter hates him, or a political hero cut down in his prime, or an illiterate Nazi pedophile cheer them up? Oh better yet bring out the nicest dude ever, Richard Nixon. Sorry but they’d rather watch a fat guy fall down.
It’s not the economy. Movies are making money. But when people put their money down, they want to have a particular experience. In the case of Paul Blart, they want to laugh. The movie doesn’t even have to be funny. As long as they can sit there and LOL in public without being ridiculed because they’re in a designated laughing area, they’re happy. We, the film enthusiast/movie buff, are the ones who are going to watch the Oscars (and the nominated films) every year and that number is going to stay the same. The only way to get more ratings is to have a major blockbuster nominated. That’s not the case this year. So no amount of stunt casting the presenters or rumored big production numbers is going to change that.
The reality is that the Academy should do exactly what they’re doing, nominate the films they want and tough noogies to the “folks”. If they start pandering, they’ll lose the faithful and then all credibility will be lost. If it only gets cable ratings someday, so what? The same people will still be watching it, and by that time it will probably be streaming live on our retinas.
It is the movies nominated to a large extent but I seriously doubt if TDK’s nomination would have helped, there’s just an apathy to awards show in general currently. There’s not an iota of suspense and they are sloppily organized (like the Baftas), the big stars are not an attraction anymore coz much like movies are increasingly being divided into commercial films and good films, even actors are being ghettoized I think. Winslet is the current queen of Hollywood according to all of us, or has atleast some claim to the title this year, but who in the whole wide America gives a rat’s ass about her films. Honestly if people are never gonna be excited about her films, why would they be excited about seeing her on the red carpet.
And truth be told Oscars have made really bad choices this year, one year after choosing No Country & arguably The Departed, the quality has seriously plunged to the depths this year. All the Oscars can offer this year are just a passing fancy for some serious-minded folks.
I expect the ratings to break last years record and plummet even further. Atleast last year they had the consolation of saying we atleast celebrated good art, they cant remotely say that this year.
Stuart, I live in SE Massachusetts. We get both Boston and Providence TV stations. So when Milk, The Wrester, and Frost/Nixon were released in those cities the commercials were on all the time, but they weren’t playing out here. The Wrester only opened in my local theater this past Friday. Still no Milk, no Frost/Nixon. So it’s possible people here wanted to see them, and maybe even went to the theater months ago expecting them to be there and then either went back home when they didn’t find them, or went to see something else.
I can’t tell you how aggravating it is to see a commercial that says “in theaters everywhere” and it’s nowhere near you.
Nobody I know cares about the Oscars and those who might care have barely seen any of the nominees. However, this year the Oscar party will be bigger than it’s been in years because everybody is in the mood to socialize, get drunk, eat grilled meat, celeb-watch and — best of all — possibly win between $100 and $200 in the Oscar pool. Times is hard, and a jackpot is a jackpot. And as I have learned in years past, it’s the ones who are the least “knowledgeable” and who care the least that often win the pot.
Are they still airing the Oscar’s this year even though TDK was snubbed?
@ Antoinette
I think your post really hit the nail on the head. My friends and I don’t share the same taste in movies for the most part and so I’ve taken to seeing movies alone. And I personlly don’t care: I go to SEE a movie, pay attention…actually WATCH it! And some of my friends actually found it perposterous. One even said that he goes to the movies to hang out with friends and have a good time. That was not my thing. While sometimes it’s nice to just “hang” and see an average film, when it comes to Oscar season I take my films seirously and don’t wanna be disturbed by having someone ask questions or make pointless comments.
Movies are making money. In recessions and economic crisis people actually go to the movies MORE! The billion dollar January and the shameful success of Paul Blart show that. The issue is the types of movies the Oscar’s focus on. None of the 5 are crowd pleaser. Slumdog comes the closest thing and the foreign language thing and lack of Hollywoodness is likely a big detractor for the general public. At least last year there was Juno. And most of the general population, just random regular movie goers, said Juno should win. Many people just didn’t get No Country or There Will Be Blood if they even saw it!
The movies are what get people to watch the Oscar’s. So this year the producers should prepare for some dismal ratings. Who knows maybe the recession will help out the Oscar’s as well. I mean The Grammy’s actually went up this year and God knows thats a sad excuse for an award show. But the way things are going, this year will likely be the all-time new low. The Dark Knight would’ve made a differance for sure. It’s sheer presence in the top two categories would’ve ensured higher ratings, becasue more people know about it! It’s basic math really. I think the show itself will be great this year for us Oscar junkies and film buffs. But very few other people are going to watch it…
Antoinette #18: “They go to eat popcorn and hang out with their friends. It’s sad but true. They don’t want to think. They go out to get away from their lives in the worst way. The smarter the movies get, the less they want to see them. You don’t munch popcorn like it’s your worst enemy if you want to hear dialogue.”
Good point. And what’s worse, the movie theaters don’t want viewers to stop munching their popcorn either. I read recently that theaters want movies that don’t require people to pay attention, on the assumption that those movies have higher concession sales — people buy comfort food, they’re more willing to leave the theater during the film to buy more, etc.
So it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that the theater owners play a big role in deciding how available the better films are for the average movie goer. And if you feed viewers comfort movies long enough, the viewers learn to think of movies as nothing more than entertainment. Maybe they don’t want to think, because they’ve never HAD to think!
(I teach literature, and I see this phenomenon all the time with my students. Having never been challenged by books, they don’t want to be challenged.)
NYC #22: “Are they still airing the Oscar’s this year even though TDK was snubbed?”
I think I read somewhere that Ganis mentioned the possibility of doing the press-conference thing with the Oscars this year — like they did with the Globes during the strike. I think it was a response to some debate at the TV network over whether they should do like they did with the daytime Emmys and not air them at all.
Apparently, the Oscars were almost taken off the air this year, but somehow the show was rescued……………….
I am an Oscar fan and find most of the movies pretty interesting this year. I loved Milk, Slumdog and Frost/Nixon. I don’t think The Dark Knight was better than any of them. WALL-E was great and I would have liked to have seen it nominated but it wasn’t. It wasn’t the first time I was disappointed. I thought American Splendor should have been a Best Picture nom but it wasn’t. I still watch.
And as somebody mentioned already, please don’t make them the Peoples Choice Awards.
I think its rather simplistic and narrow-minded to boil down everything that’s wrong with this year’s Oscars to TDK not being nominated. Hell it still got 8, there are countless better films which fared worse. My biggest gripe with the Oscars wouldn’t be TDK’s exclusion, I think that it would not even be a complaint on my part but the biggest gripe would be Slumdog’s dominance.
Some other great films that fared poorly at this years Oscars
Wendy & Lucy
Wall-E
Happy-Go-Lucky
Synecdoche, New York
Rachel Getting Married
Hunger
The Wrestler
The Edge Of Heaven
Ballast
Che
Gran Torino
Gomorrah
Burn After Reading
Along with ineligible
Paranoid Park
My Winnipeg
A Christmas Tale
Let The Right One In
The Flight Of The Red Balloon
Still Life
Silent Light, etc.
The Oscars are too insider for the average American to care about. Even if you practically subscribe to celbrity magazines and read blogs about you fave celebrities it doesn’t mean that people are interested in their movies. That seems to be part of the problem. Too much talking about actors and actresses but not about their films.
AMPAS should reduce their expectations about their awards show
What’s with all the ‘Watchmen’ predicts? Even if it became part of the zeitgeist like ‘TDK’, it’s released in March. Which usually means that 1) it will be forgotten (except by people who are predisposed toward loving it – the opposite of the Academy demographic, if this year is any indication) and 2) the studio knows something about its quality that we don’t (i.e., yes they’re advertising it, but March is March = steaming-pile-of-crap month. Beep-beep-beep-beep-back-up-the-garbage-truck month. Clean the slate month.)
What we’re seeing is a sign of the times. We live in an age where consumers of art and entertainment have infinitely more choices than they did in the 1930s, for example. No singular, clear media voice exists to suggest what we see or what we should like. This is the era of specialization, and the Oscars seem to be too specialized for most people’s tastes.
When the studio system flourished, the money men also had quality on their minds when deciding what to produce. To a great degree, they controlled the images of the stars, how the media presented those images, and dictated with more singularity what people should like.
Sure, there were high quality films back then — just like now — that never made it to the mainstream and quietly had their admirers, especially now. We simply can’t deny, though, that along with the technological options people now have, there are just as many voices providing myriad opinions, criteria and philosophies about what to do with one’s time and how to evaluate the quality of what’s out there.
Until AMPAS revamps the very structure of its awards system, this decline in their regard and relevance will continue. Occasionally, when a popular film such as Titanic hits it big, ratings and perceived popularity of the Oscars will see a positive bump. I’m not suggesting that AMPAS re-gauge its criteria of quality. I’m just saying that it has to keep pace with the times or risk drifting into oblivion to the point where — like the Miss America Pageant — its yearly gala ends up on an obscure cable channel geared to specialized tastes.
@red_wine: I think its rather simplistic and narrow-minded to boil down everything that’s wrong with this year’s Oscars to TDK not being nominated. Hell it still got 8
‘TDK’s snub isn’t the only reason, it’s true. I do believe its the economy & the national mood as well. But having ‘TDK’ on the ballot for the “big” awards (while 8 noms is a lot, surely you understand most people don’t give a damn about Film Editing and Sound Mixing) would have upticked the audience. Without a doubt. Think about it – people would tune in for the single reason that Christian Bale might have another meltdown! The Oscar show’s relevance is clearly waning, but a major, well-liked blockbuster would have stemmed the tide for one year.
I agree there are better films that fared worse. I’ve been among the people who are disappointed by they year’s nominees, but I’ve had to come to the conclusion that the year wasn’t quite as bad as the crop of ho-hum “serious” fare the Academy has chosen. Your list is good.
The problem I have with this years Best Pics is that two are very American political movies ….. and most of the rest of the world just aren’t that interested ….. no matter how good the films may be. That may hurt the overseas Oscar ratings in my opinion. I know that the same movies were voted for at the BAFTA’s but the fact that neither film did anything speaks volumes.
I live in the UK and watch the Oscars live as they happen – which is usually around 2am until 5am. Everyone I know thinks I’m a lunatic for doing so …. but I love the live action of the Oscars even when they are extremely predictable these days! It has to be said that the internet is spoiling the Oscar ceremony just because in this day and age we are able to get more inside information and feel of how the voters are voting. The show really does need to re-think of how to make itself more interesting and the way forward in my opinion would be to cut some categories and add a lot more new categories. Mix it all up.
I got a hunch that people wouldn’t care much for the Oscars this year with or without The Dark Knight. I on the other hand, WOULD care about the Oscars this year if Dark Knight was nominated. I know a bunch of people that feel the same way as me, but frankly, we’re friends for a reason.
In response to red_wine regarding the worthy films that got snubbed:
I missed 4 of the eligible movies you mentioned (the ineligible ones are just irrelevant to the conversation), but I honestly feel that out of the ones I saw, only 5 of those deserved consideration in any categories. And only one of the films you listed (WALL-E) deserves to challenge the “dominance” of Slumdog Millionaire (let’s forget that Benjamin Button has 13 noms). The movies I missed, FYI, are Ballast, Gomorrah, Che and Hunger. For the record I am DYING to see all 4 of those movies. (I get to see Gomorrah on Friday). And the movies I felt were worthy out the ones you listed were WALL-E, Rachel Getting Married, The Wrestler, Gran Torino and Synecdoche, New York
“I go to SEE a movie, pay attention…actually WATCH it! And some of my friends actually found it perposterous. One even said that he goes to the movies to hang out with friends and have a good time”
I feel the same way with my friends.
I remember when people used to watch the Academy Awards because they wanted “to see” their favorite star being nominated or just showing there. Now we see them everyday and more because of their private life and not even because of their films so people don’t have that excitement anymore.
Glenn #32: “The problem I have with this years Best Pics is that two are very American political movies ….. and most of the rest of the world just aren’t that interested ….. no matter how good the films may be.”
This is one of the reasons why I think it’s ridiculous to say that the Academy is a referee of the best films of the year. If this were true, the nominees in every field would be much more international. You can’t tell me that the Academy really thinks English-language cinema is THAT far above European, Asian and African cinema.
Strange as it sounds, I could actually deal with AMPAS better if it explicitly limited its selection to English-language films.
I think the Oscar is really about “The best film of those that had enough viewers to get nominated in the first place.”
BTW, was there ever a Golden Age of Oscar viewership? Were people tuning in in mad numbers back in the 70s?
The growing gap between art and entertainment is a widely documented sociological phenomenon of the past 20 years or so. It has grown especially since the turn of the millennium. Appreciation for art is at an all time low. Appreciation for stupidity is at an all time high.
And Sasha, please…enough whining about TDK. I appreciate your sorrow, but there comes a point when enough is enough.
@ SN2BB
And Sasha, please…enough whining about TDK. I appreciate your sorrow, but there comes a point when enough is enough.
Sasha can stop “whining” when you change your handle. Enough, after all, is enough.
Two years ago I was talking to my students in an intorductory theater class. Average age: 19. I mentioned Dustin Hoffman. No reaction. Just a sea of blank faces. I said, “You know, The Graduate? Midnight Cowboy?” Still nothing. “RAIN MAN?” I cried. Silence. Then, finally, one of them said, “Oh wait, do you mean the old man in Meet the Fockers?” And these are bright college students at a challenging university.
This is what it has come to. Of course more people would tune into the Oscars if Mall Cop and High School Musical 3 were in a death match for Best Picture.
There was a time when the years’ most popular films –Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, Going My Way, The Robe, Jaws, The Exorcist, The Sound of Music, The Towering Inferno, American Graffiti– would at least get nominated, and often win. And the Oscars were the only awards show being televised. And so, the fans –every day moviegoers and Oscar fanatics alike — tuned in. That’s why I still believe that if TDK and Wall-E were among the nominees this year, more people would watch (maybe not enough to turn the tide, but perhaps pull in better numbers than last year).
Also, I would think that the average viewer is tired of the awards glut. After SAG and the Globes in primetime, plus BAFTA and BFCA
easy to find on cable, what is it going to take to make the Oscars look like something other than a rerun with the same familiar faces thanking the same familiar people? Whatever it is, I don’t think a lot of people care to tune in and find out.
I, of course, will continue to tune in. At least there’s Hugh Jackman.
This is a fantastic comment thread, even if I can’t say I agree with all that many of the submissions. The ones I really can rally behind were written by Pierre de Plume and red_wine, which by and large sum up my feelings on the direction the Oscars have been taking in recent years, and the ludicrous bemoaning of the omission of THE DARK KNIGHT in the Best Picture category.
THE READER was a far better film than THE DARK KNIGHT to my eyes. I am far more interested in emotions than I am in car explosions, even if the film in question here is commendably stylish. The truth is we all should be lamently the ommissions of the kind of films that red_wine lists here, films I also love (most of em) which year in and year out are simply “too small” for Academy tastes and sensibilities. It seems that THE READER, which on my own Top 10 list, was placed #5 behind WALL-E, THE VISITOR, THE LAST MISTRESS and THE POOL among the year’s pre-eminent films, is this year’s punching bag, and it’s simply unfair. It’s a deeply-moving film with lasting resonance, crafted with commendable restraint and with a bevy of deft techical contributions and performances.
And finally, I think, folks that this statement from Pierre de Plume’s submission here tells it all, and I couldn’t agree more:
“Until AMPAS revamps the very structure of its awards system, this decline in their regard and relevance will continue. Occasionally, when a popular film such as Titanic hits it big, ratings and perceived popularity of the Oscars will see a positive bump. I’m not suggesting that AMPAS re-gauge its criteria of quality. I’m just saying that it has to keep pace with the times or risk drifting into oblivion to the point where — like the Miss America Pageant — its yearly gala ends up on an obscure cable channel geared to specialized tastes.”
Indeed, indeed, indeed.
Tim, that is a very sad story.
I think the “awards glut” is definitely a personal reason of mine for why the Oscars haven’t been as fun to watch in the past few years, but let’s face it, the average person has no clue what the BAFTAs or the BFCA are.
I think it does have more to do with the economy, the national climate, and the kinds of movies that are being nominated these days. Just look at TV ratings – American Idol and shows that entertain continue to do well, but an Obama press conference does even better. This fact is probably reflective of the most popular movies throughout history – they either provide pure escapism (from Gone with the Wind to Titanic), or they comment so directly on our times that they attract audiences that prefer the intellectual mainstream (not the biggest B.O. ever, but Brokeback Mountain and All the President’s Men come to mind).
Anyway, I just agree that people are sick of the so obviously constructed Oscar-bait films – the biopics like Milk and Frost/Nixon and the Holocaust-themed adaptation The Reader. I mean, everyone loves Kate Winslet, perhaps not like they love Reese Witherspoon, but enough that you wouldn’t think there would be such a backlash against The Reader had it not taken The Dark Knight’s spot. But regardless, to people who have no interest in seeing it, the film is depressing and writes itself.
That said, films with modern relevance like W. and United 93 didn’t make any money – but Bowling for Columbine did. It’s hard to know what will perform well and leave an imprint on our culture, but it’s usually easy to tell what will not.
I just think back to a year like 1997 – you had Titanic, the obvious winner, a winner in every respect.
But you had four other good stories. Not all of them were my personal taste, but there wasn’t a single “biopic” or pure “historical drama” among them.
As Good as It Gets was a well-acted, entertaining, and even seriocomic romantic drama starring film’s biggest icon and TV’s favorite starlet.
L.A. Confidential was a suspenseful, well-told throwback to Hollywood’s golden age and its seedy underbelly.
Good Will Hunting was one of the stories of the year…
People used to love celebrities, and now people love when celebrities get in trouble.
Just think about “celebrity” culture in the 90s – everyone watched Leno or Letterman to see Julia, Meryl, Denzel etc.
Now we watch TMZ and read PerezHilton.
Same line of thought with the Oscars… Forrest Gump, Titanic, Dances with Wolves, English Patient… now it’s tiny tiny tiny movies that get all the buzz.
Remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine was chastised for being the ONLY one that didn’t love The English Patient? We used to live in a time where “good” movies were word of mouth, and the average person didn’t fear a little drama – if they heard it was worth it. And then, months later, the Academy took notice.
I never want to see the Oscars become a People’s Choice, but it has been the tone, the last few years, that people feel that the Oscars are “telling them what’s worth seeing”.
But that’s just our movie-going culture right now. In the 90s, people went to all types of movies, both good and bad, and watched the Oscars to see the good ones win.
Now, people see “Mall Cop” and love it, and wonder why the they no longer relate to the Oscars.
Dark Knight was the only film that touched both sides of the spectrum, and nominations could have done a lot to get viewership up.
If only people watched the Oscars…. they’d get to see some favorites like Brangelina, Anne Hathaway and Robert Downey Jr., along with some of the greats – Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Kate Winslet (who they all know from Titanic – the last time they watched the Oscars).
To continue from above, Good Will Hunting was one of the stories of the year – Ben and Matt – and an inspirational story set in *our* time, featuring real people. It was very accessible both as a film and a backstory.
Even the less accessible British comedy of the year, The Full Monty, had its supporters and was entertaining and universally lauded as funny.
I don’t think that was the strongest year by any means, but you had at least 3 films at the top that people could rally around. We haven’t had a year like that since. Nowadays the Academy ignores most modern films and entertaining movies and even the stylish epics for literary, self-satisfying intellectual fare.
The last few Best Picture winners have really hurt things, I think. Just look at the list:
No Country for Old Men
The Departed
Crash
Million Dollar Baby
No one has really wanted to see these movies. In the years since ROTK, people have just decided that the Academy is irrelevant. I think Slumdog is the best ‘Oscar film’ in years, but I doubt it will change anything on its own. It’s not just the Academy’s recent omissions, but its actual choices for the top winners that has isolated viewers.
I realize my comments have been all over the place, and I apologize for that. But what I’m trying to get at is that it’s not really the Academy that change anything, but the industry and its biggest players.
Even if the Academy had nominated TDK, you know they wouldn’t have voted for it as Best Picture, and you couldn’t blame them for selecting Slumdog instead. I think we just need more great films that are great stories – simple and relatable. We really need more Junos and Dark Knights and Shakespeares in Love and The Sixth Senses and even American Beauties.
It’s like the ’70s all over again, except the politically charged movies aren’t as appealing — too arcane.
It seems that THE READER … is this year’s punching bag, and it’s simply unfair. It’s a deeply-moving film with lasting resonance, crafted with commendable restraint and with a bevy of deft techical contributions and performances.
I’m sorry, Sam, but some people feel exactly that way about Revolutionary Road, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Frost/Nixon, and think that The Reader is redeemed only by the performances of Lena Olin and Kate Winslet. Of the four films, I myself am only a fan of Benjamin Button, although I can appreciate some aspects of each of the others.
As my mother used to say, there is no accounting for taste.
Zach:
…..That said, films with modern relevance like W. and United 93 didn’t make any money – but Bowling for Columbine did. It’s hard to know what will perform well and leave an imprint on our culture, but it’s usually easy to tell what will not….
Very, very good point.
Fair enough Paul, you are as always a scholar and a gentleman, and one of this site’s finest and most insightful contributors.
Yeah, it’s the old ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’ adage. Much the same happened last year with ATONEMENT for me.
Thanks, Sam, and I hoped you liked Slumdog Millionaire enough to enjoy this year’s Oscars.
The reason people are not interested in the Oscars because of the films nominated. Slumdog has no known actors, Milk and Frost/Nixon are political films about dead politicians, The Reader is another holocaust film, and Benjamin Button is a 3-hour borefest. None of these movies are really worth getting excited about for average moviegoers. Now, if The Dark Knight (the biggest movie last year), The Wrestler (wrestling is a popular sport), Wall-E (popular family film), Gran Torino (everybody loves Clint Eastwood) had been nominated instead, more people would take an interest. I’m not saying that only popular films should be nominated but films that are good AND entertaining. As it is, many people get the impression that Oscar-nominated films are boring and depressing.
Indeed Paul. I liked SLUMDOG enough to have it #6 on my year-end ten best list. I will have a fun time for sure. I hope the same for you too.
Yes, I don’t agree with every award that is given at the Oscars, but being a movie freak, I’m always curious to see what wins. Also, to balance things out, I have my OWN awards show every year. I don’t care about the glamour and hosts and speeches…I just like to see who wins and then find myself either agreeing or disagreeing…It’s fun to critique AND argue about films. Keep the Oscar mayhem going folks! We movie freaks need it!
I liked what Zach said and basically agree with him. I wouldnt have paid money to go see any of the Oscar winner best pictures since The Return of the King won. Depressing or just not things I was interested in seeing, or, paying money to see.
I was rooting for Johnny Depp and Sweeney Todd last year. That was the all round best movie in my humble opinion. Johnny and Viggo aren’t up for anything this year; and the Oscar show is just too long and talky and generally too poorly put together to bother watching it.
What a change in my opinion since The Return of the King won; we had a party that night and yelled and screamed each time the movie won something. (Scared my dogs to death)
No such interest in the subsequent years except to hope that Depp would win for either Pirates or Sweeney Todd.
Sue
Unfortunately, Sam, Slumdog barely makes it into my top ten, although I did like it. As I wrote above, I will enjoy Oscar night as a social event. I will bet with my head and pray for some of those surprising upsets that make the evening worthwhile.
So is there a site that lists the ratings of the Oscar Telecast over the years? I’d be interested in finding out just when the Oscars were at their peak.
Part of me thinks that the ratings are “always” down because we pretend the awards are more popular than they are. I’ve heard people complain that they’re too long and that no one knows the films for much of the past 20 years….
It seems that you only like “happy” films. FYI I know a lot of people who thinks The Godfather I and II are boring and depressing. I don’t care if the films are depressing, I care if the films are good.
“I wouldnt have paid money to go see any of the Oscar winner best pictures since The Return of the King won…”
So you only pay for fantasy and Johnny Depp films???
Yet another reason to move the show back to March so that people can see the movies nominated and actually care about the ceremony. Please help lead the fight to move the show back to March — this every week award ceremony is getting tired and by the time the Oscars come, they are just useless – they need to distance themselves so that they are more upsets, more suspense and not a rush in nominating people (they have to nominate people right after new year’s — do you think they’ve seen all the films by that time???
“Now, people see “Mall Cop” and love it, and wonder why the they no longer relate to the Oscars.”
- Scott
Scott, I think you are my hero
Trying to make the Oscar telecast a ratings winner is the wrong way to approach things. Concentrate on making a fun lively show celebrating movies and moviegoing and make it last no more than 2 hrs (like the BAFTAS). Master control of the network should give them a 2 hr slot and threaten to yank it off the air at 2:00:01. They should have some interactive component to draw viewers to the screen. Maybe a national Oscar Pool , etc….
2 hours? They have like 27 awards to give out — even if they did only those awards at 5 minutes a piece, you’d be looking at 2.5 — and that’s not counting the songs, the best film clips, the montage segments or anything other than awards and commercials!
Leave a reply
All comments should respect the Awards Daily House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.