Mark Harris makes a pretty good case for why the Academy’s decision to expand the Best Picture race from five to ten, then from five to an indiscriminate number (so far, nine for three years in a row, probably always will be nine) has squeezed out diversity in the various categories, meaning, the only nominees come from Best Picture contenders – but I disagree with his premise, which I’ll explain after the jump:
“Some might argue that all the difference demonstrates is that this year, all of the talent was concentrated in a small handful of movies — but that’s true in a bad year, not in a good one. And before the rule change, “bad year” vs. “good year” didn’t make much of a difference. Between 1984 and 2008, an average of 18.3 movies were represented in the top eight categories each years — sometimes as many as 22, and never fewer than 16. A drop in the last two years, first to 14 and then to 12, can’t be written off by dismissing the quality of the movies that were available to nominate; it represents the encroachment of an all-or-nothing mentality that has, I would argue, been fueled by the Academy’s misguided approach to its biggest prize.”
It’s a great piece but I disagree with Mark for two specific reasons. The first, in watching Oscar history I have found that, generally speaking, the branches have picked contenders from the pool of Best Picture. This was true when there were five, true when there were ten, and true now. The reason I think it looks worse now is that they nominate, by default, their favorite films. They pick contenders in the various branches from their favorite films. Long gone are the days when the Academy’s cinematographers, for instance, pick the year’s best in cinematography. It almost always has come from the pool of Best Picture contenders. The expanding of five to an indiscriminate number still gives voters five slots for Best Picture. This is what they did since the 1940s when they started having only five nominees. Voters don’t have to put in ten contenders now. They only have to put five.
What has hurt the race more, in my opinion, was switching from ten to an indiscriminate number, and the preferential ballot. When Oscar voters had to pick ten contenders instead of five you saw some wonderful things happen in the Best Picture lineup. You saw movies like Winter’s Bone and The Kids Are All Right put in the race. Movies like District 9 could get in. Once they decided (after two years) to make it easier on voters who complained that ten was too many, the five slots mean that you’re looking at the passionate favorites of Academy members. And in this way, I agree with Harris. That narrow focus has never been good.
The other problem is the industry that has exploded around watching Oscar. As one of those who really helped launch that industry, it is hypocritical for me to complain but I think making it such a competitive race that is watched and talked about and measured from early in the year has caused voters to all feel like they’re part of the one big contest: what movie is best of the year.
That means that Emma Thompson was tossed for Saving Mr. Banks because it didn’t have Best Picture heat anymore. Or that Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker were tossed because The Butler didn’t have that heat. I would bet that if you whittled Best Picture back down to five it will still look the same. The contest is the contest. At some point, the pendulum will shift the way it did when the SAG had to come out publicly and announce that their ensemble prize was not meant as a stand-in for Best Picture.
And so it goes. Check out Mark’s full article here.
I’m gonna strongly disagree with this:
http://sophomorecritic.blogspot.com/2013/12/why-5-picture-system-has-always-been.html
“The first Oscars had two categories: Outstanding Picture and Unique and Artistic Production. They knew then what we all know now – that entertainment will almost always trump artistic vision in a popular vote. I guess they decided immediately afterward that they were in the entertainment business, only, and dropped the second category.”
Which is unfortunate, since the first ‘Unique & Artistic’ winner was Sunrise, one of the all-time silent classics. How much better would it look on Oscar history if they could point to Sunrise as the inaugural winner as opposed to the wholly forgettable Wings?
HFPA do see almost every movie but as you mentioned they try emulate the Academy Awards. They try to give nominations that have potential of Academy recognition. Their Best Director lineup is 4/5 with the Academy and the DGA…!!!
“Otherwise you make Best Picture like other categories and the member has just to vote the film he/she think is the best of the year, without preferential vote for the final vote.”
Well, in fact, I think that’s the best clear-cut system anyway – one vote per person. I’m not a fan of the preferential and the type of winner it’s producing. But if you must have rankings, doing 3 (or up to 3) instead of 9 would just help make the decision easier, in case that person has 2-3 movies they can’t decide between for their top spot. Their vote would go to the movie that needs it the most FROM THAT GROUP, not to the movie that needs it the most but that they, perhaps, wouldn’t have even nominated in the first place, and rank 7th among the nominees. Think how many people just rank everything they don’t like randomly or, at least, based on buzz, without having actually seen said movies… With a maximum of 3, the chances of somebody voting for something they hadn’t seen would be much smaller.
unlikely hood,
Thanks for letting me know. That is incredible!! WOW!!
Al Robinson – According to Scott Feinberg, the last time all five Best Actor nominees were from BP noms was 1966
I think Mark Harris is right and Sasha is, too. But will they change? Will they listen? The year is was ten to choose, I did hear over and over that “they” couldn’t list ten, so they listed less.
Were those “unfinished” ballots discarded?
And it’s all about money. I found that out the hard way and so did poor Ann Dowd last year. HAD THEY SEEN “Compliance”, they would’ve voted for her. Like the BFCA did, and she DID win, actually WIN, Best Supporting Actress from the National Board of Review. She spent $16,000 of her own money, went deeply into dept, and STILL didn’t have enough $ to spend on ads and parties and fetes for her, and since the movie company wouldn’t help…well…a perfect storm of non-nomination.
And say what you will about the HFPA, they are PRESS, and they do see all the movies they can, as I do, as a critic. We have to. So their supposed UNCANNY ability to be so often right is simply a matter of having seen EVERYTHING.So they know what’s what….but they’re still crossing the Alps for a hotdog, if there is hotdog to be had.
“That’s for nominations, not for the final vote. For that one they can rank all 9.
Doing 3 instead of 9 would:
1. almost ensure everybody has seen all of the movies for which they’re voting;
2. make it so that somebody placing a movie 6th or 7th on their ballot, but still ahead of its main rival, won’t matter anymore, which is a good thing to me, because we want the Oscar to reflect the BEST, not the LEAST BAD.”
Well I thought we were talking about the change the academy made about nominating 10 pictures instead of 5, and then a number between 5 and 10.
For the final vote it would be not fair at all to have 5 6 7 8 9 or 10 nominees and don’t give the voting members the chance to rank them. Otherwise you make Best Picture like other categories and the member has just to vote the film he/she think is the best of the year, without preferential vote for the final vote.
Although, to be more accurate, shouldn’t it be, “did the Oscar Nominations ruin the Oscars?”
I apologize if someone has already said this, but I just realized, that all 5 Best Lead Actor nominees came from Best Picture nominees.
C. Bale – American Hustle
B. Dern – Nebraska
L. DiCaprio – The Wolf of Wall Street
C. Ejiofor – 12 Years a Slave
M. McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club
Hmmm… Maybe the Oscars DID ruin the Oscars.
Whatever else, it needs to be said that five had become a disaster.
Last year, I thought the problem was missing the two best American films – The Master and Moonrise Kingdom. This year is a disappointing year from the standpoint of variety. There really isn’t a film in the field that you look at and think, that’s a surprise or that’s something different. Maybe DBC a little.
This year, there were a number of well-regarded indies from back in May-ish that didn’t make it – Frances Ha, Mud, Before Midnight, Blue Jasmine, Stories We Tell. Throw in Enough Said, add Blue is the Warmest Color, and you have a list of variety films that didn’t make it. There really wasn’t a great action/genre film. The Conjuring, maybe.
What I really don’t want to see is where the 6-10 are just an extended field of Oscar-y end of year releases. At that point, the expanded field is pointless. Until this year, that hasn’t been the case.
“Each active Academy member has 5 slots on the preferential ballot for Best Picture, not 9.
So I don’t see a big change in having 3 instead of 5.”
That’s for nominations, not for the final vote. For that one they can rank all 9.
Doing 3 instead of 9 would:
1. almost ensure everybody has seen all of the movies for which they’re voting;
2. make it so that somebody placing a movie 6th or 7th on their ballot, but still ahead of its main rival, won’t matter anymore, which is a good thing to me, because we want the Oscar to reflect the BEST, not the LEAST BAD.
Oscar Isaac instead of Christian Bale
Brie Larson or Adele Exarchopoulos instead of Amy Adams
Daniel Brühl instead of Jonah Hill
Four deserving actors from four non-BP films…!!
“My suggestion to balance passion and likability is to maintain the preferential ballot, but instead of 9 slots, only allow 3. That way they are asking which films do they like the best and yet allows for some consensus—a halfway point between passion and likability,”
Each active Academy member has 5 slots on the preferential ballot for Best Picture, not 9.
So I don’t see a big change in having 3 instead of 5.
The ‘Best Picture” category lost some of it’s luster since they moved away from just five nominees. Having so many scattered and random nominees has devalued the award for the actual winner.
I think the attitude of most observers now is to look at the five directing nominees and treat those movies as the default core Best Picture contenders. The rest are just forgotten. How many films have just been nominated for Beast Picture and nothing else? They need to go back to five.
The expanded Best Picture category shows signs that they listen. So it’s up to commentators like you Sasha to raise awareness about the other categories too. To let them know that choosing screenplay and acting nominees from the slate of BP films only is NOT ACCEPTABLE and change should come.
Be the MLK of Oscar diversity, Sasha.
“My suggestion to balance passion and likability is to maintain the preferential ballot, but instead of 9 slots, only allow 3. That way they are asking which films do they like the best and yet allows for some consensus—a halfway point between passion and likability,”
I think this is an excellent suggestion.
BAFTA used to publish long lists for every category – 15 films for Best Picture. The Academy board might publish a long list including 20 films at the beginning of December and organize a simple ballot at the end of January to reveal five to ten films competing for the big prize. That way so many films would be in competition for so many categories. All those 20 films would get the “Academy Selected” badge!
Great piece, Sasha! Oscar watching (as the original site was called) did not contribute to the problem, it’s rather the inability of the Guild/Academy to look outside of their backyard.
Just the idea that they completely shut off a movie like Inside Llewyn Davis because it’s not upbeat and positively-dramatic says it all.
At the end, it’s them awarding pre-determined movies as if they were the producers of these movies. Awards measuring acting, for example, would always be subjective, but we need more originality.
I think Harris’ analysis comes to early: One cannot make such a conclusion after two years. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s not. Also, I think, as Sasha said, it’s all about perception. A movie has to be in conversation to get some recognition. Every year great movies are overlooked because they have no buzz. It’s important to remind ourselves that the Oscars only reflect a specific perspective on a movie year. We don’t have to share this perception.
I think Mark Harris is an outstanding writer who brings up some excellent points but he seems to draw the wrong conclusions. The expansion of Best Picture contenders from 5 to upwards of 10 isnt the issue. The major problem with the Oscars are a bombardment of last minute releases saving the big studio award contenders for the last few weeks of the year. I would also point to all star casts being swept away with the popularity of the movie (Jackie Weaver and Bradely Cooper come to mind for popular David O. Russell movies). It is a problem that cant be solved. Extra nominees in Best Picture expose a symptom but it is not the problem.
Sasha brings up a great point that voters pick their favorites. Case in point: I’m a member of a critics group who included both FRANCES HA and IN A WORLD in my Best Original Screenplay category. I didn’t include them in my Best Picture lineup. As you can tell with the Oscars, Academy members included screenplays to AMERICAN HUSTLE and DALLAS BUYERS CLUB because they happened to be the screenplays to their favorites…movies that had robust campaigns which opened at the end of the year. From my perspective, blaming the number of BP contenders isnt the issue.
Why not make it 7? A classic number. Seven days in a week, Seven Years in Tibet, Se7en, the Seven Deadly Sins, the Seven Wonders, the seven seas, seven Koopalings from Super Mario, the Seven Dwarfs, and seven Best Picture nominees…
Not too few, not too many, it’s just right!
9 vs 10 is all the same. The big difference between 5 versus the 9 or 10 is that the preferential ballot is used to select best picture. There lies the problem.
I like having 10 titles, it does open the door to some diversity in selection. The problem is now one of consensus over passion; hence the one most liked over most loved.
While Argo, The Artist, and The King’s Speech were rather safe, I still think they would have won if it would have been a straight vote, as it won Director and Actor—same thing with The King’s Speech. Also The King’s Speech and Argo won the guild awards. There’s no reason not to think that Argo wouldn’t have won on a straight ballot.
This year is different. There is no consensus dooming us to a world of banality. There is passion and general admiration for the films. I think the two films in the end are 12 Years and Gravity. It comes down to the number of people who put one film’s placement over the other’s. I really believe that 12 Years will have more #1 yet Gravity will prevail in the end due to the preferential ballot.
My suggestion to balance passion and likability is to maintain the preferential ballot, but instead of 9 slots, only allow 3. That way they are asking which films do they like the best and yet allows for some consensus—a halfway point between passion and likeability,
Mark surely has a point and some very interesting arguments but he forgets to explain the reason why 2012 had the 2nd highest number of films nominated in the top categories in the past 30 years (21… Since se wrote the highest is 22).
“Maybe if the Academy had a crystal ball and realized what an artistic disaster Dark Knight Rises would turn out to be there wouldn’t have been the rush to rectify the snubs incurred by Nolan for Dark Knight.”
Artistic disaster IN YOU OPINION. Not in the opinion of the critics… It holds 78 on Metacritic and 88 on RT (both scores higher than Inception). Made 448 million dollars in the US and would easily have made 100m more if the shooting hadnt happened.
It did not receive a tech nomination? Well… Rush, Cloud Atlas, Hairspray and others were also ignored by the tech/musical branches while masterpieces like Alone Yet Not Alone, Norbit, The Wolfman (this last one won), The Lone Ranger, Transformers 2 and 3, Snow White and the Huntsman… All did.
“DARK KNIGHT RISES’s great. Screw the haters!”
Agreed!
I find it so ironic that the Academy expanded the Best Picture field, ostensibly to recognize artistic yet popular blockbusters like ”The Dark Knight,” but when its acclaimed third part, ”The Dark Knight Rises,” arrived, it was totally skunked. ”The Dark Knight” had gotten 8 Oscar nominations, yet ”Dark Knight Rises” gets zilch, even in tech categories.
On top of that, Christopher Nolan got DGA nominations for ”Memento,” ”The Dark Knight” and ”Inception,” but still has yet to receive an Oscar nomination for directing. That is screwed up!
After having seen Meryl in August, I think she was solidly in 4th if not higher. What a performance.
A big problem in recent years appears to be the shrinking of the Oscar season by 4-6 weeks, and the studios waiting until Christmas to release major Oscar contenders. I am guessing this has made it hard for voters to consider a broader range of contenders.
now I might want Wolf to win in a surprising upset!
Leo and Marty are now officially nominated as producers of Wolf of Wall Street! http://www.awardscircuit.com/2014/01/21/leonardo-dicaprio-adds-another-oscar-nomination-producer-wolf-wall-street/
Gregoire– yes, it would stand to reason that Blue Jasmine would have nabbed the 10th spot, given both its PGA nomination and the rarity of a BP nominee not having either director or writing nominations or strong support from other branches (i.e. not Inside Llewyn Davis or Saving Mr. Banks).
Yeah you’re right, if there was just 5 nominees last year, either one of those two or Zero Dark Thirty would have gotten in. Probably either Beasts or Zero. (Assuming Argo, Lincoln, Life of Pi, and Silver Linings were the other four.)
Jerry Grant,
Amour and Beasts both got Best Director nods along with Best Picture. Unless you are arguing that both directors were really the “Lone Director” nod last year?
Based on the results in the acting categories, if the Oscars had announced ten nominees, does it stand to reason that movie no. 10 would have been Blue Jasmine?
Im fine with 5-10 because if it were ONLY 5 and lets say Nebraska got in 5th and a Wolf got in 6th (but with director, 2 actors, and writing) … The public would be further confused.
Yes, Nebraska is great. I enjoyed it. But Im sorry, to thepublic, Wolf is the hot movie, the one talked about, the one with buzz, the one that will sail past 100 million dollars when Nebraska struggles past 10.
Nebraska is the movie that the water cooler public will say … “nebraksa? What thehell is Nebraska? Havent seen that. What is it? Why the heck isnt Wolf up for Best Picture” etc. You just know that large portions of casual movie/Oscar watches would say/feel that. It would be Dark Knight/Walle all over again. Im fine with “more than 5” (whether thats passion votes or a solid 10).
My italics went nuts!! sorry.
steve50, what have you done!!? We’ll send in a crew to fix it.
(used to be, if anyone post wrong HTML code it would leak out and affect all the comments that followed).
The first Oscars had two categories: Outstanding Picture and Unique and Artistic Production. They knew then what we all know now – that entertainment will almost always trump artistic vision in a popular vote. I guess they decided immediately afterward that they were in the entertainment business, only, and dropped the second category.
I like Simone’s idea of a category for Best Alternative Cinema – works for music. Best first film would be a good addition as it would not only recognize a talented newcomer, but could also be a dumping ground for those actors they go giddy over when they direct their first film and award them with BD/BP.
*The Oscar will just be
I remember desperately wanting Jeffrey Wright to be nominated for Best Supporting Actor for the remake of SHAFT. lol This not nominating from unbuzzed movies has been going on a long time. And of course, some of you remember my Guy Pearce in LAWLESS campaign last year. XD Damn that BSA award.
I can’t tell what it is, but I know that the mandatory ten years were great. Then the last few years have been really boring marches up to awarding movies that everyone is meh about. I do think the Oscars have been tarnished in that they’re not representing the best and the brightest now. If people look back on their winners and see a string of movies they don’t think are close to “best” why should they look to them in the future as any kind of barometer of quality? The Oscar just be an award a group gives out.
Maybe if the Academy had a crystal ball and realized what an artistic disaster Dark Knight Rises would turn out to be there wouldn’t have been the rush to rectify the snubs incurred by Nolan for Dark Knight.
Alrighty then. Let’s take this outside. *cracks knuckles*
Sasha,
I always wanted to know: what is the difference between having 9 or 10 contenders?
Just go back to old 10…
The Academy when decided to put this indiscrimined number of nominees said that they analysed that in some years between 2001 and 2008, there would be 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9. The problem is… When we had 5 nominees, a vote in something like War Horse, Extremely Loud, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Her or Philomena would matter very little… All of those would likely have been ruled out of the derby in a field of 5 after the precursors… But not under the new rules, which gave the oportunity to all of being nominated.
If the new rules existed between 2001 and 2008, the dinamycs of the voting would totally change and there would likely have been the same default 9 nominees.
I have grown to like the expanded field. The “Top 5” BP nominees was so exclusive for so long. How ridiculous that “Chocolat” or “Finding Neverland” would make it in, but not “Almost Famous,” “Eternal Sunshine,” etc. … Since 2009, we have seen movies that deserve to be nominated for BP nominated for BP.
A Serious Man, Up, 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, Winter’s Bone, Moneyball, War Horse, Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty, Captain Phillips, Her, Philomena <—- All BP-nom-deserving movies that wouldn't have made it with the top 5.
Christophe,
I disagree on one point: “it could reduce again the pool of films to choose from in the major categories because voters might feel obligated to choose their picks for the various categories among those 10 films”
If the list is public I think on the contrary that a lot of members would disagree on some choices or snubs in the top 10 (see the Ben Affleck effect las year). I think some could be more incline to recognize other films the feel more worthy in some categories and, also, nobody knows which films will end up being the 5 nominees.
By the way, even if you were right… I agree with Bryce: “Where are you going to find the best writing, performances, cinematography, music, etc? Well in the best films of the year (whichever you think those are) Where the fuck else??”
(…) think they would ever get rid of it. Though if given the choice I’m pretty sure many voters might rather have a system they can understand, where every one of their votes count.
akumax,
I love the idea of presenting an early top 10, say before the end of the year and then nominations a few weeks later. But I doubt Academy voters would like to vote twice and in a sense it could reduce again the pool of films to choose from in the major categories because voters might feel obligated to choose their picks for the various categories among those 10 films, which is exactly what Mark and Sasha are complaining about.
Also, I believe preferential voting in most categories has been around for a very long time, if not since the early years, and the Academy seems very proud of this specificity, so I don’t
If I had some say within the Academy, I would change things this way:
considering the long long awards season I would have a preferential vote only for Best Picture and I would announce the top 10 of the year quite early.
Then I would do the second voting to determine the nominees in all categories including Best Picture (only 5 slots).
In syntesis it would be like they do for foreign language film: a short list first and then the 5 nominees.
In my opinion that way the Oscars would be more influential before the guilds… and to add a turning point to the season would make things more fun… more fun for me! 😉
Ryan,
I was mainly being sarcastic about Nolan, but I stand by the assessment that such a massive change in the rules based on the perceived snub of TDK was utterly reactive and led to the equally reactive move of the preferential ballot. If we had applied the TDK logic to the Affleck/Bigelow snubs, would we have expanded Best Director to 10/9? Where would it stop? Go back to five nominations, if anything to be in line with all the other major categories.
As for TDK, it was the victim of demographics in the voting bloc, biases against the genre, and possibly just maybe enough voters thinking that Heath Ledger’s brilliance didn’t completely paper over just how incoherent the last act of the movie was.
I was mainly being sarcastic about Nolan, but I stand by the assessment that such a massive change in the rules based on the perceived snub of TDK was utterly reactive
Apologies. I need to remind myself more often that I’m not the only one who likes to be wry, dry, catty and droll.
“Would have been American Hustle, Gravity, 12 Years, Nebraska or Captain Phillips, Wolf”
Are you sure about that? Academy liked Dallas Buyers Club enough to somehow give it Editing and Writing nominations, and we could end up with two actors from it winning on Oscar night. I think American Hustle, Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, Nebraska, and Dallas Buyers Club is more likely, which Scorsese as lone director.
OT: I kind of wish the Academy stayed with five, or at least stuck to 10. Inconsistent numbers of nominees are frustrating (even if the possibility only exists in the abstract, as it has done so far). 5 nominees allows for a narrow elite fighting for the top prize (and Harris is probably right in saying it allows for wider total nomination pools, numbers don’t lie). Meanwhile, 10 nominees does allow for more exposure to more movies that might not get major recognition otherwise (a la Beasts of the Southern Wild or Amour).
I still like the 5 nominees, because it was prestigious to be in that group that made the cut. Sure, there were many times my personal favorite didn’t make it in, but that’s the nature of the game.
I think having 10 or 6 nominees cheapens the category, and the award winner.
I think Mark Harris is getting his recent Oscar history from recent AwardsDaily posts. He writes that TDK changed the game. It was TDK *and* WALL-E. Which Sasha noted at the time. But a post from her last month showed that she’s changed her own mind on that, God knows why.
That matters because an expanded field ought to potentially include animation. Every time Sasha and Harris erase that part of the history, they make it slightly more unlikely that another Up or Toy Story 3 will break through. The feeling becomes easier to have every year (especially for voters choosing a top 5): Frozen? Don’t cartoons have their own category?
Another thing I don’t like about that history revision is that it’s thinly disguised auteurism. Nolan is so great that his batarang chipped AMPAS’ armor. I mean, I dunno why I even bring this up around here, because that horse left the barn a long time ago, but it’s like, oo, look what auteurs do. Not what Warners and Pixar’s combined lobbying did. And this revised narrative is helped by the fact that Pixar has jumped the shark of late, and Nolan hasn’t. Oh Nolan, come and change the Oscars again, save us!
If the New York Times said that John Kerry was working on an Israeli-Palestine peace deal because of the root cause that the Israelis kept building settlements, and neglected to mention the other root cause of Palestinian agitation, the Times would be flooded with about 500 angry comments and several exposes on Fox News. But Harris and Sasha can get away with only one of two root causes, because this is the Oscars and it doesn’t really matter, right?
I completely agree with Ryan. Nine is a random number that gives you the impression that they couldn’t come up with ten worthy titles. It looks sloppy and just plain wrong.
Btw, Mark Harris’ point stands (Sasha doesn’t address the numbers directly): The top eight categories yield fewer nominated films with every passing year. 12 this year, where before the change of the BP category it was always between 16 and 22 (if I got it right?). That is a significant development that probably has to do with both the category change (as Mark suggests) and the consensus-enforcing machinery of the media-saturated reality of the 21st century (Sasha).
Dench took Thompson’s vote.
Dench took Thompson’s vote.
Amy Adams did. Dench was already secure.
Thinking (perhaps) outside of the box, what if the Academy changed the Best Picture category to this:
Best Action
Best Comedy
Best Drama
Best Horror
We’d get 4 different Best Pictures. The drama would probably be the prestigious films, and the action, comedy and horror categories can be less prestigious, where it’s okay if a film like Anchorman 2 wins. Or, they could at least sub-categories like how the Critics’ Choice does it.
Best Comedy
Anchorman 2
Last Vegas
This Is the End
We’re the Millers
The World’s End
Best Action
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Iron Man 3
Man of Steel
Pacific Rim
Star Trek Into Darkness
DARK KNIGHT RISES’s great. Screw the haters!
Receiving an Oscar nomination brings the nominee visibility, more offers and recognition, so for me that is always a good thing, The more the merrier. The Oscars is now about celebrating movies for this observer, i do not expect the ‘best’ or my favorites to necessarily be included or honored. But it is a business, and i think it is the 24 hour news cycle, panoply of media forms (not just bloggers per se) and the relentless marketing machine that perhaps whittles down the potential contenders to a handful of films that are then perceived as the only worthy movies of a given year. My beef with the Academy & its telecast is that now it nominates more than 5, it does little to actually honor them through the show, At least the Globes, bless their cotton socks, and SAG awards run clips during the evening of the nominated ‘best’. AMPAS would do itself a better service by giving some much deserved air time to the actual movies its members make and vote on, rather than the meaninglessly naff production numbers and inane banter between mismatched presenters, (climbs off soap box)
So what’s the solution? Go back to 5 BPs? Or something more creative?
So what’s the solution? Go back to 5 BPs? Or something more creative?
I like a solid consistent Top 10. The AFI does it. The NBR does it. Thousands of critics and movielovers can do it.
When I look back at Oscar history, what makes me groan the most are not their often perplexing winners — what kills me worse is to see movies the Oscars forgot to mention altogether.
I love looking back at the BP nominees from 1932-1943 — when they nominated 10 movies in that era they gave us a much better snapshot of the taste and range of cinema at that moment in time.
Must’ve said it a 1000 times already, but voting for 5 or 10 films does not impact the results in a preferential voting system. If you want proof then maybe we should run a simulation on this very web site and ask readers to enter their top 10 films of the year and then compute their ballots with the 2 different methods. The only difference is due to the fact that there have only been 9 nominees since they’ve changed the rules so it means 1 less spot that might’ve gone to a more “original” choice. And btw, the fact that Tree of Life, Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild and even Her made it in under the new system does prove that some “original” films can still make it in.
Adding more categories would dilute the awards.
Maybe if the Academy had a crystal ball and realized what an artistic disaster Dark Knight Rises would turn out to be there wouldn’t have been the rush to rectify the snubs incurred by Nolan for Dark Knight.
The problem with the Oscars is the guild awards remove most doubt about the winners weeks before the ceremony
Maybe if the Academy had a crystal ball and realized what an artistic disaster Dark Knight Rises
in that case, Coppola is lucky they didn’t see The Godfather III coming.
wtf has the stumble of the Dark Knight Rises got to do with the brilliance of The Dark Knight?
I would like for the Oscars to stick to 5, maybe in a tight year, expand it to 6, but nothing more. The reality of listing 9-10 is akin to a ‘honorable mention but not a chance in hell of winning the Oscar’ nomination. Hence, these are vanity nominations.
What I would prefer to see is a genre category for the type of brilliant films that would otherwise not qualify as ‘Best Pic’. Just like how there is a Best Foreign Language, Best Animation, why isn’t there a Best Alternative Cinema category.
Hey, I like the sound of that. I would have totally put Prisoners or Inside Llewyn Davis in my new category suggestion.
Sasha, thanks for sharing and quoting my remark.
—
Mine [prediction at least], tentatively, would have been: Hustle, 12 Years, Gravity, Nebraska and . . .
Her or Wolf or Phillips.
Sasha, I would like the believe the last of the 5 would have been Nebraska, just because Alexander Payne has had more Oscar success before, with Sideways and The Descendants. I think the Oscars wrongfully ignored United 93. I know we were still only five years removed since 9/11, and they were still a little sore about 9/11, but I think someday they might regret that they didn’t nominate United 93.
Patrick,
“If AMPAS wants Best Picture to be the consensus film, then they should fix the nominees to 10.”
I don’t know about that. 2010 had a lineup of 10, and the STILL picked The King’s Speech. 2011 had 9 and they STILL picked The Artist.
Just sayin’
I’m not a fan of the indiscriminate number. With less nominees, the passion film is more likely to prevail. With more nominees, the consensus film is more likely to prevail. This is because the more nominees, the more rounds of redistribution. If AMPAS wants Best Picture to be the consensus film, then they should fix the nominees to 10.
I’m torn. On one hand, I would like to see 10 films, because when a film that I really love gets ignored for Best Picture, it bothers me, because they would still have 1 available, unused spot. I would have loved to see:
2011 – The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
2012 – The Master
2013 – Inside Llewyn Davis
But, what I do like about it, is that we know the ones nominated ARE the ones they liked the best. I just can’t argue against that.
My biggest problem with the variable number of Best Picture nominees is how it gives the casual observer a false impression that some years are weak and other years packed with greatness. Few people dig into any year’s abundance of brilliant movies like readers here do.
So anyone less initiated in the future will look back on years with fewer than 10 BP nominees as years when there just weren’t 10 worthy movies to be found. We know better. We know there are 20 worth movies this year that were ALL better than Crash.
But lazy industry people are telling the world they can’t think of 10 good movies in 2013. That’s a sick sad reflection of the industry and art form they’re supposed to be celebrating.
Actually, the music branch has criminally not nominated some of the best scored films, even if they weren’t best picture caliber. The best films of the year in the mind of the Academy don’t necessarily contain the best work.
Vertigo? Well, the Academy didn’t think much of that one. Should its score have been nominated? YES!
Pretty much every great score by the fantastic Jerry Goldsmith did not come in a great film. Listen to Medicine Man’s “Trees,” The Russia House’s perfect jazz score, The Wind and the Lion (nominated for score only), Gremlins—he was an amazing composer for film!
Correction: (Inside) Llewyn Davis [not “Llewyn Davis”].
In brief: To me, using the indiscriminate number, which has kept yielding nine films for a few years so far, or alternatively just ten films a season for the final BP nominees, is fine.
At a truly primitive [lazy-minded] level, at least so, one could see that five is less than nine or ten — meaning, even when and where one sees nine years on the final list, for instance this year, it still inevitably has left many people, understandably, in despair.
*coughing Lewyn Davis*
*coughing again, for myself: Blue Jasmine having lost its otherwise surefire eight or ninth spot*
Imagine having gone back to five — this year . . . .
Scary thought . . . .
(My American Hustle, I firmly believe, would have prevailed at least as one of the final five noms. But what about your Wolf, guys — how well could you have handled your disappointment then?)
Imagine having gone back to five — this year . . . .
Would have been American Hustle, Gravity, 12 Years, Nebraska or Captain Phillips, Wolf
missing quotes^
Sasha,
Is the quote level on the second paragraph correct?
it represents the encroachment of an all-or-nothing mentality that has, I would argue, been fueled by the Academy’s misguided approach to its biggest prize.
Ehh nah. I’m all for it. Where are you going to find the best writing, performances, cinematography, music, etc? Well in the best films of the year (whichever you think those are) Where the fuck else?? It’s why GRAVITY missing on an 11th nomination for Best Original Screenplay will remain a travesty.
It’s annoying, yeah. What got to me was seeing Peter Travers’ annual ranting on “Damn You Academy!” where he talks of the ones left out like Hanks or Thompson but doesn’t say who he’d have taken out to put them in. If they’d left off DiCaprio or Adams, he’d be screaming as hard as he shares the same thing as various other critics who think the Oscars should be a grade school science fair, everyone worthy gets an award of recognition when it’s not meant to be that way.
But come on, they’ve screamed about great pics/performances being snubbed since the Oscars began and likely to continue. It’s not perfect but still rather trust in the folks in the industry to vote rather than critics (See how Entertainment Weekly boasts of “Prisoners” being a Best PIcture contender and Jackman worthy of Oscar glory). Not perfect but it’s what it is.