Gavin Polone describes himself as an “agent turned manager turned producer.” Today for NYMag’s Vulture he turns into Oscar analyst. His prognosis is Cinematic Psychosis as the Academy increasingly loses touch with reality.
As a kid I remember sitting in front of the TV with my family, like millions of others, in one of the largest non-sports audiences of the year, absorbing the drama and the gaudy clothing worn by beautiful people, and staying up past my bedtime to find out who won the big award: Miss America. But, over time, our changing values and the obvious irrelevance of the beauty pageant caused me and most Americans to dump the silly institution on the trash heap of cultural obsolescence. Soon, lying next to Miss America on that dump will be Oscar.
Whereas at one time Miss America represented the ideal for a woman in this country, the Academy Award may still be associated with the pinnacle in filmmaking achievement; but like Miss America, the Oscar has lost its relevance and value. Whether people realize it or not, it would be a benefit to the entertainment industry, as well as the moviegoing masses, if we just learned to ignore the Oscars.
As with that misogynistic competition, in which women’s bodies are dissected, judged, and then held up as a false ideal for the public, I can’t see the value in saying one artistic endeavor is better than another. This is also true of the Emmys, the Grammys, and the Tonys, as well as the various arts-related Pulitzers, of course, but the incredible attention lavished upon the Academy Awards demands it be singled out as a meaningless and misleading worst offender.
Instead of calling the ultimate award given at the Oscars “Best Picture,” they should really call it “the Favorite Picture of the Roughly 6,000 Academy Voters.” Given the makeup of this group — older, whiter, and more male than movie audiences, which are younger and more diverse than the American public — it would seem that contests between Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction, The Departed and Little Miss Sunshine, The Hurt Locker and Avatar, or The King’s Speech and The Social Network are all foregone conclusions. It explains why the year Driving Miss Daisy won for Best Picture, Do the Right Thing wasn’t even nominated. And it also suggests why genres preferred by younger audiences, such as comedies and animated movies, are rarely nominated and almost never win when they are. Can you really say that Borat didn’t deserve a nomination but Letters From Iwo Jima did? Beyond the fact that the older, white, rich liberals in the movie business will bring their own tastes to the Oscar ballot, human nature dictates voters will choose films that say something about how they see themselves: They want to be known as thoughtful, sensitive people who prefer less entertaining but more socially conscious films. Voting for a tedious movie about racism and injustice like Crash instead of meaning-free crowd pleasers like Wedding Crashers, Batman Begins, or Mr. and Mrs. Smith mitigates the voters’ guilt about parking their SUVs in handicapped spots and being part of the one percent.
But the Oscars aren’t just corrupted by self-regard; they’re corrupted by money, which affects everything else, of course — which movies are made, who makes them, who stars in them, and how likely they are to succeed. The studios spend tens of millions of dollars each year on campaigns to get their candidates attention from the voters. The push for The Social Network reportedly cost between $7.5 million and $10 million, mostly spent on parties, screenings, consultants, ads in trade papers, billboards on the West Side of L.A., sending out DVDs. When you add up all of that spending on so many films, you could easily come up with a nine-figure sum. The cost of two Oscar campaigns could comfortably fund the total production budget for a movie like Drive or Midnight in Paris.
This is one of those articles so packed with potent good sense, it’s hard not to import the whole thing. We need to direct your page views to the source to read the rest. Then pop back here to finish up and offer your own opinion.
Studios not feeling the pinch of these extra expenditures could take more chances in their choices of what to make. The current binge of sequels and remakes is largely fueled by fear, since there is a perception that offering content with an established brand carries less risk. If the studios bolstered their bottom line by reducing Oscar-related spending, they wouldn’t feel as great a need to make less risky but egregiously derivative product. It takes only a small number of outstanding and original movies to get people out of the “there is nothing worth seeing” malaise that has been reflected in an overall drop in ticket sales during the past year, which was dominated by films whose titles end with a number. And which largely suck.
More tough love at Vulture.
Many in Hollywood would say that the financial reward of Oscars success makes the cost and loss of dignity worthwhile, but the facts indicate otherwise. A detailed statistical analysis of the Oscars’ box-office effect by Boxofficequant.com showed that almost all of the ticket money flowed in after the nomination, not the win. But this is also misleading, since it is difficult to know how a film that was nominated would have performed had it not received a nomination. True Grit, for example grossed 18.5 percent of its total after being nominated, but The Social Network took in only 1.5 percent of its total after its nomination. The difference between the two is obvious: release dates. The Social Network came out October 1, while True Grit was released at the end of December, so the latter was in the middle of its strong theatrical run, the former at its end.
Of course, some people do benefit from the Oscars, aside from publicists, the trade press, the New York and Los Angeles Times (have you ever seen any kind of anti-Oscars article in those publications?), and Los Angeles billboard owners: the individuals who win. Directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, and anyone else with a nomination or a win gets a big bump in pay after being so honored — as much as $5 million, it’s said, for a Best Actor trophy. Unfortunately for the payer of this Oscar bonus, there is no correlation between anyone’s winning an award and future box-office success, despite the big deal made about Oscars in marketing campaigns. PopEater’s Jo Piazza showed that of the top 100 highest-grossing films of 2010, 40 percent of the top twenty featured Oscar winners, while 50 percent of the bottom twenty did. If possessing a statuette was actually worth something, shouldn’t there be some direct correlation between casting an Academy Award winner and higher box office? If you were financing a drama that starred a man in his mid-forties, would you feel more comfortable with your investment by offering the part to Sean Penn or Kevin Spacey, each with two Oscar wins, or to Will Smith or Johnny Depp, neither of whom has won?
Fortunately, the public seems finally to be losing interest. The Oscar broadcast has evidenced a pretty steady decline in audience share since the mid-seventies. Last year, obviously feeling the need to bring in a younger viewership, the Academy hired James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts. The plan didn’t work; there was a 12 percent drop in the 18-to-49 demographic and a 9 percent decrease in overall viewers. Clearly, this is because the audience feels alienated from the choices of nominations and winners, not how they are presented. As with any cultural institution, when the interest and support of the young are lost, it is just a question of when, not if, that institution becomes fully irrelevant. I can’t wait.
Simply commenting on the article, Mel. I do believe that what you can do here, correct?
Seriously: We need an open thread where those of us who’ve been reading this site for years can discuss the point at which we each lost faith in AMPAS.
Leave those of us who enjoy it alone and find something else to watch or complain about that day…
OMG, if I were you’d I contact the authorities. I had no idea Ryan and Sasha came into your home and forced you to read this website.
Who’s bugging who in this scenario?
I had no idea Ryan and Sasha came into your home and forced you…
ssshh.
I ▃ N ▅ C ▆ E █ P █ T ▆ I ▅ O ▃ N
Brrrmmm! Brrrrmmm!
Every year!
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
It’s easy, kids. If you enjoy the Oscars, then watch them. If you don’t, quit griping about it! Sheesh!
I don’t hear this kind of whining about the Super Bowl, the most bloated commercial ever created. Even the people who yammer on of it will be glued to their plasmas on Oscar Day. Leave those of us who enjoy it alone and find something else to watch or complain about that day…
I don’t hear this kind of whining about the Super Bowl…
sure, all across the country, not a single temper tantrum on Super Bowl Day.
because sports fans are so complacent and sedate about players and outcomes
1) What blockbuster deserved inclusing this year? MI4 might have been OK. Captain America was a very good film, actually, but not a huge BO performer. There really wasn’t an Avatar or Inception or Dark Knight this year, other than maybe HP, and maybe that should have gotten a nom. I personally like to see a blockbuster in there, but I’m not sure there was one this year that really rang the bell.
2) What else draws in 40 million viewers nowadays? I would bet there’s a higher multiple for the Oscars compared to other television programs today than existed in the 1980s.
3) Oscar isn’t perfect in its taste. But its taste has improved in recent years. And last year, most of the noms made 100 million or thereabouts. This year, there haven’t been as many high-quality films that were significant hits. Personally, I think the increase from five nominees was a smart move, after the 2008 BP nomination debacle.
Hey Ryan,
You’re a smart guy, but this article reads like an angry rant from someone who wants to burn down the village because his favorite film wasn’t nominated. I’m all in favor of criticizing the Academy’s choices when they merit it (I still get mad every time Cronenberg gets snubbed – this year included), but they are still an important informant in shaping popular taste. With the glut of content out there now, high profile, discriminating voices with clout are needed. Would films such as The Tree of Life, The Artist, and The Descendants be able to find a wider audience without the HFPA and the Academy?
It does my heart good to see so many that feel the say way I do. Fassbender should be in the five without question. This sentiment is all across the internet by a wide variety of high profile reviewers and fans alike. It’s sad, I saw something about an interview he gave and they asked him who is date would be for the Oscars.
If George Clooney is really such a nice guy and everyone says he is, when he wins, he’ll mention that this guy should have been nominated, but I won’t hold my breath.
I can tell you this, that the BAFTA’s have not only nominated him but will award him Best British Actor, and hopefully bring other wins for this film on his coattails.
After you.
Oh, profanity, lol, love it.
I had a message typed, ripping you a new one, but I erased it. Arguing with you is pointless. However, I must say, your rebuttals were funny. How many seconds did your “feel good” last?
A “feel good” this good will last a few days. Thanks.
had a message typed, ripping you a new one,
not really advisable. let’s both step back.
I must say this, and I’ll be done. I think we put ourselves in a bad place if we take away organizations and events that are in place to award art, and in the end, that’s what the Academy Awards are all about; a jury of one’s peers awarding the fine work of another artist. It’s recognition, an encouraging word, someone saying “You did good, you did really good.”
The problem is that the general public mixed this up. Most people believe that when AMPAS nominates a film, performance, or another piece of work that they are saying that all other subjects of work were poor quality. That is not true. It is ridiculous to think that. Does anyone really believe that Academy members thought films like “Beginners” or “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” were bad movies? Or that Albert Brooks had anything but a stellar performance in “Drive”? Of course not. Just think of all the actors who performed this year that weren’t nominated for an Oscar. There are literally HUNDREDS of them. Is that to say that those actors did poor work. Again, of course not. Instead of thinking of the Oscars as the NCAA March Madness Tournament, we should consider it an art exhibit, and there is only so much room in the gallery.
Why can’t the Oscars honor these people? Especially in a year where all 9 Best Picture nominees are uncontroversial in their content; especially in a year where so many of them are inspirational crowd pleasers that have people cheering for the hero; especially in a year of so many fantastic performances from actors and actresses alike, why wouldn’t you want the industry to say “We’re proud of these people”? If it is the winning/losing concept that bothers you, well, I’m sorry. But just GETTING THERE is such a reward in itself.
A few examples real quick. Gary Oldman received his first Oscar nomination this year for his work in ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.’ Gary is a man who has been in the business a long time, playing characters that audiences loved, in both small films and blockbusters alike. How cool is it that he was honored this year? Do you think that he appreciates being nominated? I do. People are getting all hot and bothered about guys like Michael Fassbender and Ryan Gosling not being nominated. They’re young, very talented guys. Their day is coming. Just for one night, let a group of his peers tell Gary Oldman that he is an outstanding performer.
The next example. The Social Network was my favorite film of 2010, and probably my favorite film of the past 10 years, and a lot of people were pissed that it didn’t get the recognition it deserved. Well, it can join the club of other great movies that didn’t win it all. But just think about this. It was nominated for 8 Academy Awards and won 3 of them. This group of voters thought that this film was exceptional in not one, but it eight different ways. This movie had 8 reasons for people to say it was fantastic. That is distinction and promise all on its own.
Let them put on their show, and if you want to look at the gallery, you can watch and enjoy it yourself.
Ha ha, you’re funny, and also a hypocrite. In your disclaimer, you mentioned “bad behavior” constitutes being banned and reveals you as a coward, so do snide comments IMO. One shouldn’t make a habit of posting things they wouldn’t say to a person face to face if they had the opportunity. I believe Academy Award winner Jennifer Hudson had to set someone straight on Twitter a couple of months ago for that very reason….
Am I funny, D? Here to amuse you? We wish you were.
I’m not a hypocrite because this isn’t bad behavior. This is me handing you back the same attitude you came to dish out to us. Come gunning for me and this is the best behavior you can expect, alright?
good grief, maybe you’re too sensitive to be online. If we banned everybody who had a snappy comeback and called out whiny bullshit when they saw it, then we’d have to ban some of our favorite readers.
Lucky you only ran up against me instead of some of them.
We like friction. We live for it. You think we featured this piece to pacify everybody? It was written to spark debate and reposted for the very same reason.
Why the heck would I be afraid to say any of this to your face, pal? Are you so fearsome in person? Would you do something to me up close that you can’t do online? oh, my goodness. You and Jennifer, layin down the law!
Thanks for endeavoring to set me straight! But lots hotter girls than you have tried and failed.
Telling you true, D. You’re fortunate this isn’t face to face, friendo. I’m not an actor so I can’t act crazy like you do. I just have to be crazy for real.
Let me guess — you’re still reading? Am I more fascinating to you than NASCAR or soccer? The back button is right there on the menu bar, dude. Punch it.
We see your type all the time. Always threatening to leave in a huff, never to return! — and then we can’t get rid of you.
🙂
“secondly, the oscars were a bigger deal back in the day because there weren’t all these other awards bodies. if all the small critics groups of awards season went away and your favorite film had only one chance to win something, you would care more and the participants would care more. and sorry to the critics, but the oscar system of having a large voting body and having that body be made up of the people actually making films is a vastly superior awards system than hashing it out at a meeting of ten people”
whoever said this spot on bingo good one mate hit the nail on the head;)
I don’t care about soccer, so I don’t watch.
I don’t care about The Housewives of Beverly Hills, so I don’t watch.
I don’t care about NASCAR, so I don’t watch.
You get my drift? I’m an actor, I find the Oscars to be very entertaining. Do my favorite films and performances always get nominated, no, but we can’t win them all. To suggest that we should learn to ignore the Oscars is insulting, and ridiculous. If you don’t like the Oscars, don’t watch, just that simple. Don’t rally the troops by saying “we”, use the personal pronoun “I”.
I wonder which of his favorites didn’t get nominated. It seems as if the films that he favors got nominations through the years, this article would not have been written. This piece of trash deserves no credence. I used to check this site daily, but now I think I may need to find others to peruse; yes, I know Ryan Adams didn’t write it.
D,
You have no trouble passing up soccer and NASCAR. I feel bad to have thrown such an unskippable temptation in your face.
Stop reading this reply if you’re able to. Stop.
Stop now.
Please stop reading.
Good god, man, for all that’s holy, tear yourself away from my hypnotic lure. Hit that backpage button!
Scroll!
Scroll like your life depends on it!
I agree with what one poster wrote .Everyone seems to be upset when their favorites misses and then the Oscars are crap .If the favorites get nominated all is great ,the Oscars are great .
It´s the taste of around 6000 members not the general public.They like what they like and nobody can change that .I watch the Oscars since 1991 and you know why ? I love to see all the stars walking the red carpet and the show itself .I often said the Oscars are not important and to a certain degree it´s true .I like or dislike a film, a performance or a actor because of my own taste but not because he won a Oscar .On the other hand the Oscars STILL are the most prestigious award in the world and I BET every nominee is proud to be in this circle ,if he admits it or not.How do you say who is the best ? They all play different parts ,for example actors ,how do you compare the performances ? Maybe the members see more of the efforts who are put in a performance ,because they work in the same craft .For sure the nomination is not only because who actually gave the best performance but also the boxoffice ,the campaining and a lot more .On a personal note I love to see Gary Oldman nominated finally ,the Oscars got it right this time LOL.Fassbender is young ,he´ll undoubtly be there one day too.
I must say that column will never win an editing prize…or much else. It’s a bunch of whining that always seems to happen in the week following the Oscar nominations and the awards and it usually has some theme about how the Academy has lost touch with the main stream. In this case it’s out of step with the moviegoing masses. Really it’s whining about how the collection of film professionals that make of the Academy nominating process has an opinion that is different from their own. It’s petulance. “My movies didn’t get nominated so I’m going to blame the system.” And all the obfuscation that the money spent on Oscar campaigns could have funded another “Tree of Life” or “Midnight in Paris” ignores the obvious which is while that is theoretically true, it is far more likely that the money would find it’s way to fund “Kung Fu Panda 3” or “Pirates of the Caribbean 17: Captain Jack Sparrow in Space”.
As has been pointed out quite well by others using the Netflix data the value that an Academy nomination brings is people will seek out, in the theaters and through the rental market, these films. They stir interest that otherwise would not exist in great performances. Even the uproar over those that didn’t get nominated creates interest in those films. I can say for myself, I had a chance to see “Margin Call” in the theater but passed. Now, it’s on my list of movies to go see. Same goes for “A Better Life”. And on this forum, I saw at least 2 people mention that they had purchased DVDs from the UK of “A Separation”. I was thrilled that it got a Screenplay nod because that is the sort of thing that makes people take notice of a fabulous film that for a great many people would have otherwise gone ignored.
The fact of the matter is that it is an imperfect system AND that people have different opinions as to what is their favorite film or performance. Like so many other discussions the positions to quickly become binary for some – My favorite is the best/everything else is dogshit. See some of the “The Social Network” partisans when it comes to discussing “The King’s Speech”. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that TSN was better that TKS, but, in my opinion, TKS was a very good film. You want to know some real crap from that year? Check out “Tron Legacy”, “Grown Ups”, “Little Fockers”, “The Last Airbender”, “Shutter Island”, “Jackass 3D”, and “Valentine’s Day”. You know what they have in common? The first 3 did a bigger box office than did TKS and all 7 did better than TSN. If that represents the moviegoing masses with which the Academy is out of step, give me the Academy 8 days a week and twice on Sunday. I’ll take art over commerce, even if the appreciation of the art does not precisely match mine.
I just did a little thought experiment. Imagine if all 10 of these films were released in the same year (5 blockbusters, 5 arthouse), and all 10 of them were up for Best Picture:
Avatar
The Bourne Ultimatum
Children of Men
The Dark Knight
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Inglourious Basterds
There Will Be Blood
Toy Story 3
The Wrestler
Wouldn’t you watch? Wouldn’t you be interested in the outcome? A healthy mix of commercial filmmaking and more challenging arthouse fare. Everyone would be happy and everyone would tune in. People would also go to the movies. A lot. Hollywood would make its money and the Oscars might actually mean something. 2011? If we nominated more blockbusters, we’d have Michael Bay competing with Martin Scorsese. Yeah, that’d make you proud of the Oscars.
Just because we scrutinize miss america contestants with the same process as the oscars, doesn’t make them exclusive. One is for beauty, the other for artistic achievement. It sounds like Gavin is moreover critiquing the way we assess the quality of things in general, which is what it is. It’s in our nature to give awards or say something is “the best.” It gives us a focus that isn’t exclusively determined by how much money something has made. If you look at all the top ten lists out there, everyone wants to be the quality barometer people look to for what films to see. It’s not that the oscars are the best authority on quality, it’s that they are “perceived” to be. In a way it’s importance is more about the tradition of it. In the film world, it’s how time is marked, and at years end, here is what we like the best. If you remove it from the equation, another ceremony of “best of” would eventually take it’s place and then be equally vilified and condemned. In the end, whats the point of reinventing the wheel if we already have it?
Animated films are probably the best examples of everything you said. Great animated films from big studios make big money. Hardly any exception for this. 2010 was an outstanding year for them. 1/2 of the years top 10 in Box Office was animated and despite Shrek`s mid reviews, all the other 4 did well with critics.
The inclusion of 2 art-house films and the exclusion of big studio films in the Oscar lineup is a response to the big studios.
@ Noah R.
Totally agree with you. Potter was the only big movie that could (and should for me) have been a BP nominee. The quality of the big movies decreased a lot. And as consumers are not stupid, all those bad blockbusters are not making the same amount of money they used to. You just have to take a look at the top 5 of 2001 and the top 5 of 2011 in the American Box Office. Harry Potter 1, Fellowship of The Ring, Shrek and Monsters Inc (and Rush Hour 2) x Harry Potter 7.2, Transformers 3, Twilight 4.1, Hangover 2 and Pirates 4.
But some years like 2008 are just great for big movies. Hope to see The Hobbit, The Dark Knight and Pixar`s Brave in 2012’s top 5. And hope they are great films. If they are fantastic, I can see them going all the way through the 85th Academy Awards along with Lincolns and Harvey.
Kyle Smith wrote something similar yesterday and my reaction was exactly the same:
If Hollywood made better films then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
In the ’90s, we had winners like Titanic, Braveheart, Unforgiven, Silence of the Lambs, and Forrest Gump. Now I’m not saying all those films are great, but they felt like events when they came out. People talked about them, and more to the point, people actually saw them. We have nothing like that anymore. For every Avatar or Inception, we get a dozen or so Green Lanterns. Other than the final Harry Potter movie, what big movie came out in 2011 that had everybody talking? And that’s the real problem. The Academy is out of touch in many ways but the solution to this (and SOPA incidentally) is really simple:
MAKE. BETTER. PRODUCTS.
“You are not sure if the Academy was impressed by True Grit considering they gave them 10 nominations including Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor and Supporting Actor.”
They also gave “Ben Button” and “Gangs of New York” a double-digit number of nominations. I don´t think that “True Grit” would have entered a 5-slot Best Picture-race.
Haven´t seen “Toy Story 3”, but they hardly ever nominate animated stuff in the major category. They have a separate category for them.
“Black Swan” was all about Natalie Portman. It was far from winning any other category. And “Kids” doesn´t look too unlikely to me, especially because it has great acting and it deals with important social issues. That´s always a plus, makes the Academy look liberal.
Supporting ACTRESS
I don’t agree with everything said in the article, but I do think many valid points are brought up.
Hollywood would be better off without the oscars. They would save a lot of time and money and ultimately the quality of the product would improve.
Perhaps the answer isn’t too get rid of them altogether, but maybe they should just stop televising them. Have all the precursors announced in the second week of January on the same day along with AMPAS and then declare the winners based on the nomination ballots.
And I do think Gavin Pallone is right. Bit by bit people are just going to stop watching and the Oscar ceremony will mean less and less each year.
If viewership dips by about 10% each year then the oscars will probably be gone in the next 10-15 years.
@ Domink
I hope that you are not comparing Toy Story 3 to Tintin.
TS3 is one of the best animated films of all time and one of the best films of 2010 (was my number 1 tied with Social Network). And as far as i know the Academy animated branch hates mo-cap. Toy Story is no mo-cap.
You are not sure if the Academy was impressed by True Grit considering they gave them 10 nominations including Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actor and Supporting Actor.
And I don`t see Kids Are All Right/ WInter`s Bone winning acting awards or getting best director nominations…. so they were more impressed by Black Swan although its outrageous snub from the script category. And, honestly, I truly would never think someone would think Winter`s Bone would make the top 5. A strong opinion but that I truly don`t see how could happen.
Oh lord, three times “that” in one sentence… my english is fucked!
re: prev comments
since the 10 best pic noms change, they’d been lucky (or unlucky depending on your view) that the 1st 2 yrs, the top 5 contenders were blatantly obvious and you could discern what the 5 would have been: in 09, hurt locker, avatar, up in the air, basterds, precious probably in that order. in 10, king’s speech, the social network, true grit, black swan, the fighter probably in that order.
but this year, it was 3 obvious films (artist, hugo, descendants) and then what? probably the help and god knows what after that. if i had to guess, midnight in paris. this is the first time i can’t really say with confidence what the five would have been under the old system. maybe this was obvious to you, i had been overestimating war horse and underestimating the help, moneyball and midnight in paris all season.
“No space at all for The Kids Are All Right and Winter`s Bone.”
I disagree. First of all, according the pressure to nominate “Toy Story 3”: The pressure was probably as high as nominating “Tintin” this year- and that had Spielberg behind it! 😉
I´m not that sure that the Academy was that impressed by “Black Swan” or “True Grit”. I could easily imagine “Kids” and “Winter” joining “King´s Speech”, “Social Network” and “The Fighter” for the Top 5.
Ok, let´s say at least ONE of them, because there has always been room for one indie candidate, even with only 5 noms.
i think the oscars will remain culturally relevant. film is a media that allow for a lot of social viewpoints whereas miss america was about basically, one social viewpoint. are movies today less artistic than movies of yesteryear? of course not. there is more diversity and artistry in today’s films than there ever has been. what was astounding yesterday is lame and cliche today. the only complaint you can accurately make is that the dumb ones (and if it is a great visual movie with a simple script is it really dumb? sometimes but not all the time i contend) seem to be making the most money, but that is not enough to generalize on the state of the artform, and if the oscars wants to just keep honoring the best over the most popular then they should. the argument that in the 70s the oscar winners were the big grossers can be used to detract the oscars of the 70s just as much as it can be used to detract from the oscars of today. if you really think there is a degeneracy in movies because studios have cut out the screenwriter in favor of fx-laden marketing entities with idiotic scripts, well guess what, going to the movies is too expensive now, it’s hip to bash blockbusters, and they need to find cheaper movies to make. they can’t make a quality product without a screenwriter to think of something passable with a cheap production value. so it will be cyclical.
secondly, the oscars were a bigger deal back in the day because there weren’t all these other awards bodies. if all the small critics groups of awards season went away and your favorite film had only one chance to win something, you would care more and the participants would care more. and sorry to the critics, but the oscar system of having a large voting body and having that body be made up of the people actually making films is a vastly superior awards system than hashing it out at a meeting of ten people. the loss of young people to the tv broadcast says nothing about the film industry. i am a young cinephile and basically everyone i know is too. do i watch the oscars every year? no. for instance, i missed 98-02, even though i actually love gladiator and a beautiful mind. do i go to the movies more than about 4 times a year? no. do my friends and acquaintances? no. the lack of young audience speaks to the irrelevance of network tv, the high cost of moviegoing, and the availability of information on the internet. ratings for all the top network sitcoms are half what they were in 1980, and the same is true for late night and most sports programming. it is network tv that will become culturally irrelevant, not the oscars.
“how many black actors have won there? How many animated films and smart blockbusters have ever been part of the Cannes selection, how many smart comedies have won?”
JP, I don´t care too much about categorization, so I´m really only intrested in the quality of the film, no matter if it´s a comedy or a drama, no matter if great acting comes from a black or white or whatever actor. I´m probably not too much into PC-discussions. But I truly know that I prefer the Palm d´Or winner in 9 of 10 times to the Academy Award winner of the specific year.
I haven’t read any of the Harry Potter books either, but it didn’t interfere with my enjoyment of the last HP.
For my money, the last HP is a masterpiece, and the film moved me like few others did this year. Masterful storytelling, epic scope, dark themes, great characters, emotional music, wonderful actors, beautiful cinematography, outstanding set design, inspired directing . . . what more could anyone expect from a movie? The last Harry Potter had it all.
(Just my opinion)
@ Dominik
I do have my concerns about Tree of Life too but… in a year with 5 there`s no way The King Speech, The Social Network or The Fighter would`t have made the cut. True Grit too considering its huge box office and 10 nominations. Black Swan had a director nominee and If the Academy didn`t change the system, Up would`t have best picture nominee and the pressure for nominating Toy Story 3 would be so high that if could have happened. Pixar might not have submitted it to animated to force the Academy to nominate as Best Picture. No space at all for The Kids Are All Right and Winter`s Bone.
Please allow me a somewhat random rant. I’ve read most of the comments here and many of the others since the nominations were announced, and I’d like to say that it is not an objective fact that “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” and “Harry Potter” are modern masterpieces that deserved Best Picture nominations. I thought the best thing about “Tattoo” was the performance of Rooney Mara, and guess what — she was nominated!!! And having not read the Harry Potter books, I found most of the film series nearly incomprehensible. I have nothing against people who love either of these movies — to each his own. But too often people turn a passionate personal love for something into a mandate that everyone must feel the same way, and if they don’t, well then they’re just wrong.
As for the Oscars, they only matter as much as you let them. I don’t understand why people can’t like what they like, agree or disagree with the Academy’s choices, and then move on with their lives.
Maybe this site’s logo should be changed to:
. . . the trick is . . . . not minding . . . TOO MUCH!
For all the artists who were snubbed on Tuesday, take comfort in the knowledge that you are in great company indeed. Actors who never won a competitive acting Oscar (i.e., not honorary) include: Orson Welles,Rosalind Russell, Robert Mitchum, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Marilyn Monroe, Thelma Ritter, Kirk Douglas, Natalie Wood, Doris Day, Rock Hudson, Warren Beatty, Myrna Loy.
So if you don’t get your Oscar this year, like I said, you are in illustrious company.
@ Dominik
Don`t generalize like that! Cannes sometimes make choices as outrageous as the Academy Award ones. And although they diversify in giving awards to different countries, how many black actors have won there? How many animated films and smart blockbusters have ever been part of the Cannes selection, how many smart comedies have won? There are directors that are invited there every time they have a new film…. Gus Vas Sant, Lars Von Trier, Almodovar, the Dardenne brothers… there`s not so much diversity although Almodovar is a genius for example. And in terms of awards, of course the Oscars are far more complete… films are not made only by directors, screenwriters and actors. They are made by animators, costume and art designers, cinematographers, editors, sound editors….
“Foreign films didn`t get in, but do you think An Education (which I hated), A Serious Man (hated too), Winter`s Bone, The Kids Are All Right, Tree of Life would have made the BP lineup without the expansion?”
JP, yes I do think that “Winter´s Bone” and “The Kids are all right” would probably have made it into the Top 5. I don´t care about “Tree of life”, but that´s a different story.
The thing is: With 9 or 10 noms it doesn´t mean as much to crack the category than with only 5 nominations. The last years I had the feeling, well, EVERYTHING with the minimum of buzz get´s in, even stuff like “The Blind Side”.
Regarding the best actor race, rarely – if ever – would I have felt that 4 out of the 5 should be replaced with other, better performances. Not only, the actor who should have won the damn thing and the 3 next best performances are out of it. Don’t think that has ever happened to me before. Lots of “make-up” oscars on the horizon.
“The most interesting thing about expanding the field for Best Picture is that it gives us twice as much insight into the taste of the Academy.”
That´s pretty much what I wanted to say in my long-winded english! 😉
Agree with you Ryan but only in the rule change they made last year. This 5%-number-one I always thought would only benefit the Oscar bait films. And it did. But I can be proved wrong if The Hobbit, The Dark Knight Rises and Brave get nominated next year.
Like Sasha always defended, I would have stayed with the previous top 10 and the system then. In that system, there is space for indies, art-house films, blockbusters, animated films (2009/2010 prove that) and even foreign language ones. In the new system, I fear the space is smaller but only time will prove that. Last year top 10 was amazing and had a variety of films…. from the animated highest-grossing film of the year to the biggest indie to have ever been nominated for the Oscar.
Robertlowercasea:
so were Babe, Beauty and the Beast and plenty of BP nominees. And, as Babe, HP are movies that the younger can enjoy while on the bigger picture, Rowling has been playing with universal themes in ways you wouldn’t have expected. A pity some of the loses on the adaptation of the books, people would have seen more clearly which is HP’s origin as a concept and what’s the intention of it. Does anyone think J.K.Rowling had even dreamt of becoming millionaire with her tale?
JP, I didn´t wanna mention “Tinker, Tailor…” and “Dragon Tattoo” as examples of edgy indie stuff, just two give two examples of films that would´ve probably enrich the current field with some diverse qualities.
If we talk about excellent indie stuff that will have no chance to earn a Best Picture-nom except they expanso to 50 Nominations, I might give you candidates like “Melancholia”, “The Kid with the Bike” or (from past years) “Hunger”, “Fish Tank”, “A Prophet” … I could go on and on, let´s put it this way: Trust Cannes, distrust the Academy.
Jorge and JP are right. I agree with Ryan, it’s a fun thread
Boy oh boy oh boy oh boy.
LIGHTEN UP EVERYBODY! The Oscars have always been kinda horseshit – but we all know that. However, what GLORIOUS horseshit it is!
How many great national traditions do we have left to celebrate (Superbowl, Macy Day’s Parade, etc.), after all, in this crazy mixed-up world?
The Oscars are fun. I love watching the presenters and the red carpet and the gowns and who wins and who loses. It’s absolutely harmless and generates conversation about movies. And that can only be a good thing for any one who loves film as much as we bloggers do on this site.
Katharine Hepburn said of the Oscars: “It’s our (the artistic community) big track meet (contest) of the year. And its lovely to win.” So let’s just leave it at that. If these people want to hug themselves in front of the world, who really cares?
Finally, it would be a sad day, indeed, if the Oscars went away. I love ’em for all the cornball crap they’ve thrown at us over the years. I remember nearly throwing my crab salad at the screen when James Cameron won Best Director for that gawdawful gigantic boat movie. AhhhhAh, Oscar memories. Ain’t they grand?
The thing you could point (and that I agree) is that the 5% rule benefits more the Oscar-bait films but because of this rule The Tree of Life could make the cut. I suspect it didn`t appear in as many ballots as TGWTDT, Tinker Taylor or Bridesmaids, but it had the number ones those films didn`t have and could have failed to make the cut in 2009/2010.
@ Dominik
Did you forget 2009 and 2010?
Foreign films didn`t get in, but do you think An Education (which I hated), A Serious Man (hated too), Winter`s Bone, The Kids Are All Right, Tree of Life would have made the BP lineup without the expansion? Of course not. Black Swan would even with 5 but all those indies, art-house films would`t.
Once again most of you guys are making generalizations! Black Swan is edgier than Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Drive, Tinker, Taylor and made the cut for BP and would have made even with 5 slots. Although I hated A Serious Man, it was also a totally non-typical Oscar nominee…. Winter`s Bone is one of the most non-typical Oscar nominees of all time.
Regarding the edgier stuff, guys…. you asked so hard for The Tree of Life nom…. that happened and you`re complaining a lot still. Most of you are being too dramatic. People here wrote that would prefer not having seen Tree of Life getting the nom if it was for ELIC to fail too.
Regarding blockbusters, this year was mediocre (although I always defended a Potter nomination), but in the last 2 before 2012 the biggest blockbuster was nominated for BP and 1/2 of the nominated films in each year made more than 100 million dollars in the US. Next year when The Hobbit enters the race, no one will be talking about this.
The real problem is the expansion of the Best Picture-field a couple of years ago!
For the following reason: The times we had a prestigious 5-slot field, everyone could imagine that our beloved ambitious favourites surely ALMOST made it and only missed because it was too edgy.
I remember a discussion I had with Ryan a couple of years ago about the question which kind of films could probably benefit from the expansion. The indie ones? Maybe some foreign films? Arthouse stuff?
Since we see a field of ten (and this year 9) nominations we clearly see that the films truly benefiting from the 5 + x-rule are the junkfood movies.
Imagine this year a field of 5 would likely looked like:
The Artist, The Descendants, Hugo, The Help, Midnight in Paris
Not as embarrassing as the list of nine, no? To learn that films like “Dragon Tattoo” or “Tinker, Tailor” are THAT far from the Academy´s taste that they are even replaced by stuff like “War Horse”, “Extremely Loud” and – yes, a shoo-in but still embarrassing – “The Help” tells us a lot about these people (diverse and heterogeneous as they are).
The most interesting thing about expanding the field for Best Picture is that it gives us twice as much insight into the taste of the Academy.
there might be the germ of an idea for a longer exploration of this revelation, but I’m not ready to think about the implications yet.
It was always obvious: 20% of the AMPAS have very lowbrow taste that masquerades as highfalutin literary emptiness.
expanding to 9 or 10 slots just means we get 2 appalling movies instead of the traditional 1 of 5.
double the BP slots to 20 and that same 20% of voters would have given us The Iron Lady, Extremely Loud, Dolphin Tale and New Year’s Eve as 4 of the 20 BP nominees
one individual believes my argument is based on a love for the 3d format that is waay over simplistic i did not even bother seeing final destination 5 or the extreme excesses of saw 7,8 whatever not to mention majority of other 3d films so that logic is out the window whomever said that lol i like films that push the barrier and have great stories and all the above i covered in my article ok i know my opinions are like articles but read and though shall learn:)
@ rYAN aDAMS
The passion you refer to is stirred up for one simple reason the public want to be counted as part of oscar’s considerations that we are not has invited mass level of frustration with both oscar and how it treats its movie going public.
Bette,
I totally agree with everything you wrote.
Nominations gotten by my top 10 movies (so far) of the year 2011: 3 for The Tree of Life (#1), 3 for Harry Potter 7.2 (#3), 1 for The Adventures of Tintin (#6), 4 for Midnight in Paris (#8) and 10 for The Artist (#9). No love for Another Earth (#10), Melancholia (#7), Habemus Papam (#5), Red State (#4) and The Skin I Live In (#2). Color me extremely disappointed as only 3 movies of my top 10 are nominated for Best Picture, and 2 of them are in danger of falling out if I just find 3 more deserving films… considering my taste, Drive, Shame and A Separation are likely contenders, but also Chico & Rita and plenty of docs out there (Senna, specially). Also considering the Best Picture nominees that I haven’t seen, only Hugo seems a threat to me for a top 10, I despided Payne’s Sideways years ago, neither “The Help” nor “War Horse” seem to be on my alley, either and “Moneyball” is the one I keep an open mind yet, but “Jerry Maguire” ain’t specially my cup of tea, either, so I hope Pitt’s better than that.
The problem with AMPAS is that they lost touch with reality, ages ago. In my opinion. But it’s refreshing that something in Hollywood still dares to contradict mainstream audiences, film critics and studio executives all at once. They’re the filmmakers, for God’s sake, so they obviously know better.
I’m not too impressed with this years’ best actor field either, but that doesn’t mean one should give up on being realistic: No, Bichir stand no chance of winning best actor.
I don’t think the movies nominated are the reason the Oscars have become less popular. The only people who ever really watched for that reason were hardcore fans and industry folk – and those people still watch. The general public, however, watched to stargaze and see beautiful gowns. And in today’s world, you can do that anytime, anywhere. We have unparalleled access to the lives of movie stars.
The campaigning end of it has gotten out of hand, however, and studios try to justify the enormous sums of money spent as an investment that they see a return on. But I think we all know the truth – it’s about vanity and bragging rights.
Sclub. HP is a children’s movie.
Gotta agree with Ryan’s comments about Jean Dujardin in The Artist. He is charming, very handsome, great smile. But is this really great acting? Does Dujardin ever really convey — is he ever even really called on to convey — more than one emotion, right on the surface of his face?
I am wondering if Demian Bichir is a dark horse, who might come up the middle like Marion Cotillard did in La Vie en Rose? If people think (fairly or not) Clooney and Pitt are just “stars”, not actors, and Dujardin doesn’t really give a great display of acting skills, and Oldman is too subtle and non-Hollywood, might they give the Oscar to Bichir, who apparently (I haven’t seem the film) gives a heart-tugging performance in a moving, contemporary story, and would be the first Latino actor to win Best Actor? It’s not impossible.
We will always complain about the Oscars but I`ve always thought it was the award that equalizes best diversity of choices (specially in the nominees, giving space to indies) and handles a diversity of awards (not only the main.. film, directing, acting, script… but techs, animated, musical, docs). The Oscar, although not usual, sometimes go for art-house films. How many times an animated film, a smart blockbuster was in competition for the Palm D`Or. And although obviously awarding people from lots of different countries (unlike the Oscars), how many black performances have won the Cannes Film Festival?
From the Awards Season awards, it`s obviously the best one, since it does`t try to foresee anything (Critics Choice Awards), gives space to independent productions, actors (we would never see Demian Bichir, Richard Jenkins, Winter`s Bone in the Golden Globes… and hand`t the Oscar given Melissa Leo her first nom, she would probably haven`t taken her role in The Fighter). They are the only one that equalizes blockbuster (although not always) and indies (every year there is space for them). Just like no other TV awards equalizes the Emmys with all the problems it has, it`s always a more fair prize than Globes.
What stick got up his ass?
Is he really implying that Little Miss Sunshine was snubbed at the hand of The Departed? Because of Old White Men? The same white men that prefer Driving Miss Daisy & Forrest Gump (which I loathe, but I still don’t follow his argument), not to mention Shakespeare in Love (over a macho war movie, no less) & The English Patient?
Also, is he actually *complaining* about The Hurt Locker winning the Oscar? So Hurt Locker over Avatar is out of touch, because the people loved Avatar more, but The Kings Speech over The Social Network is out of touch because… he loved it more?
If he’s really just rallying for the cultural interests of US teens, someone should draw his attention to the highly laughable – if entertaining – MTV Movie Awards, where Box Office reigns supreme. Which movies was he expecting to see? Surely not Shame, if he is touting box office & teen appeal?
From my experience, he underestimates what young people want from the Oscars. Sure they choose middle of the road, but they can’t afford to be either snobs or heathens (as nominating forgettable movie candy like Wedding Crashers would render them, IMHO), so they straddle the middle line. The young people I know are shocked, even disappointed, that Bridesmaids is included at all this year (not that I agree). & These are not film snobs.
Frankly, Gavin’s “too liberal to be liberal & so counter culture I’m main stream again” tirade is quite tiresome. & The fact that he seems offended by the idea of any awards whatsoever kind of nullifies the rest of his meandering argument.
Or maybe it’s just me.
Well, I don’t think it is completely unfair to ascribe some of Bichir’s success with the Academy, that the story of A Better Life speaks to a lot of LA-based liberals within the Academy. It is a problem they can relate to, because they know it’s there (just outside the door).
No, there is not a “Mexican/Spanish contingent” within the Academy, but there probably is a contingent for whom this specific problem speaks louder and with more urgency than a lot of other social problems.
http://www.episodi.fi/oscarit-2012-nostalgiaa-ja-pettymyksia-17302/
These nominations – I wrote about the good things and the bad things (in Finnish). I didn’t mention HP8 as one of the snubs, ’cause it was expected to be mostly omitted.
Link may require some Google Translate 😀
ATR, you are out of your head. Truly.
Demian Bichir is likely the MOST deserving of the Best Actor candidates. Your ludicrous assertion that he is nominated as “one-off” and that he is “old” (48!) and that there is a “Mexican/Spanish” contingent in the Academy…? Where do you get such things?
You obviously haven’t seen A Better Life. That is one courageous, passionate and emotional performance and it’s about something very REAL, unlike several of the others. He performs with personal integrity and depth and nuance, and there isn’t a false note.
And to call Dujardin, who displays great showmanship, tells a story without words and expresses love, friendship, despair, rock bottom and rebirth, a “one-off” is a JOKE.
Fassbender was snubbed and it’s terrible. But you should blame Oldman, not Dujardin, and especially Bichir. Especially Bichir.
You really need to have your head examined, sorry.
Stopped taking the Oscars seriously long ago when Braveheart was nominated for Best Picture. That Oscar evening, i spent watching Lawrence of Arabia for the very first time on a huge screen in a beautiful theater.
My friend Rebecca told me “I agree….all these years the Harry Potter films should have been at least nominated for categories other than the technical awards but ESPECIALLY their last two films. I’ve seen them all, read all the books (of course the books are always better than the movies)…the movies, I’d say, are not for kids under the age of 11, at least not past movie #3 when it starts to get darker in #4 and beyond. I say 11 because that’s how old Harry is when he enters Hogwarts. I’m not saying the Potter movies would win the other categories (acting, directing, best film) but they should have been given the chance with Deathly Hallows.
9 nominees for best film while only 2 for best original song, baffling. I didn’t read up on any nomination “rules” but to the common moviegoer like me, that is weird.
Good for Melissa McCarthy for getting a supporting actress nod. She was the best thing about Bridesmaids. She probably won’t win, not against the two actresses from The Help, but it’s nice to be nominated.
I saw Hugo today and it was GREAT. Unlike anything out in theaters currently. Different, I think, from anything Scorcese has done in the past (saw his cameo in it too), and I loved seeing two cute dachshunds in it (like my own dog). Not just in one or two short scenes, either, but off and on throughout the movie. Haven’t seen The Artist yet but I think it’ll be tough to predict Best Picture. The Help and War Horse were awesome. The Descendants was good but I don’t think it deserves to win over the other nominees.”
Also PS, Academy Awards Harry Potter was rated PG-13. It ain’t a kids film.
http://www.contactmusic.com/news/potter-oscar-snub-confounds-industry_1287411
“The omission of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows — Part 2 from the list of nominees for best picture was the subject of numerous blogs and newspaper commentaries on Tuesday — not to mention water-cooler talk at Hollywood studios. Warner Bros. had made a big push for nominations, but the film received only a single major nod — if one for art direction is considered a major nod. (It also received two other technical nominations). The snub seemed particularly perturbing when only nine films wound up in the best picture category. While ten films might have been nominated under academy rules, the organization presumably felt that no other film, the critically praised and moviegoer approved Deathly Hallows among them, was worthy. MTV.com columnist Kevin P. Sullivan observed that a nomination for the film “would have defied Academy stereotypes and shook up a race that is destined to leave many viewers snoring.” New York Post film critic Kyle Smith said that the list was bad news for ABC, which will broadcast the Oscar event. It “made it clear that the Feb. 26 ceremony will be among the least-watched editions of the collapsing telecast,” Smith wrote. And Jere Hester, who writes for NBC New York’s blog, concluded that Harry is not the only “loser in Tinseltown’s equivalent of the Quidditch World Cup. By snubbing a film series beloved by a young moviegoers, Hollywood may have cursed itself.” (Movie blogs were also filled with remarks by moviegoers scratching their heads over the inclusion of Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close in the list but the omission of Drive. Likewise the inclusion of the virtually unknown Demián Bichir in the best actor category but the ommission of Michael Fassbender and Ryan Gosling, arguably the two most critically acclaimed actors of the past year.)”
Ryan – gotcha, and I find you guys’ passionate advocacy for the films you like, even when contrarian, awesome (even when we won’t always agree, obviously).
P.S. I also would knock out Clooney in place of Fassbender, a propos of Best Actor.
Jorge, You’re one of my favorite people to squabble with!
🙂
Seriously, your have a great temperament in debate. You set a good example — how to disagree without being disagreeable.
gotta say, we underestimated how much heat this post would stir up. I didn’t really have strong personal feelings about it — just thought it was interesting to see someone who’s a prominent Hollywood insider speak out in such radical fashion.
The comments that have spawned over the past 12 hours have been just as smart and impassioned as the post that provoked them. Fun to read.
Awards shocker: “The Oscars and silly and meaningless!!!!!!”
No kidding. I’ve never read so many words, taking themselves so seriously, in order to convince us that something we all know is just silly fun is indeed silly.
I love the Oscars — watching them, debating them, discussing predictions. But I never for a moment have taken them seriously or think that they mean anything. I also don’t think I am getting a balanced meal when I eat popcorn. This guy seems to be so arrogant and hurt about the supposed decline of the Oscars, which can only mean that he was too stupid not to see the Oscars as what they have always been — just a stupid fun Hollywood award.
Anyway, we’ve heard this all before. Anyone who watched the Oscars in the 70s remembers the years when actors boycotted the awards because they thought they were demeaning, too North American, too mainstream, rewarded crap like The Sting over masterpieces of new American cinema like Mean Streets, etc. This is all deja vu all over again.
Also, somebody earlier asked…who should’ve been left off for Fassbender? It should’ve been Bichir. He was good, but not great, and I feel the only reason he made it in was due to the character’s nobility, as well as the fact that it seems there’s a certain contingent within AMPAS that’s very gung-ho about Spanish/Mexican cinema. He also had the advantage of being older. This year we once again witnessed the “old man syndrome” of the Academy. They prefer older men (Bichir and Oldman over Dicaprio and Fassbender) and younger women (Mara over Swinton, not that I’m complaining about that one).
It’s a shame that Hollywood’s most talented young actors who deliver multiple great performances in one year (Gosling, Fassbender) are again and again overlooked for quality yet probable one-offs like Bichir and Dujardin.
It’s a shame that Hollywood’s most talented young actors who deliver multiple great performances in one year (Gosling, Fassbender) are again and again overlooked for quality yet probable one-offs like Bichir and Dujardin.
Dujarin is a handsomer Jerry Lewis. He’s the French Jim Carrey as far as I’m concerned. There was better acting in Madonna’s Vogue. There, I said it.
He’d be my 5th choice of the 5 nominees we got. Demián Bichir 4th. Bichir is a comer though. He’s no one-off, I don’t think.
Among other benefits Demián Bichir had last year was the advantage of being literally the very first screener that went out — seems as if it was as early as October. They were really early getting this movie into the hands of movie writers and saturated the voting groups with it. They had a special movie but knew it was smallish compared to the big guns that were coming. For weeks and weeks it was virtually the only screener out there. Any actor fishing around in his stack of mail for something watch in October and November would have had few other choices of free DVDs.
It’s a great little film, and a well-deserved nomination. Though I’d still have rather seen the two Michaels nominated — Fassbender and Shannon.
What’s really sickening about this Best Actor line-up — the least deserving of the 5, in my eyes, is the suspected frontrunner. And the guy who should have probably won the Oscar this year is not even nominated.
To be honest I don’t think these conversations would be taking place if Extremely Loud hadn’t been nominated and if Fassbender hadn’t been snubbed. EL&IC is the one choice that sticks out like a sore thumb because it’s both a low grosser AND a critical flop, on top of being obvious Oscar bait of course. When was the last time AMPAS nominated a film with a rotten score on RT? I can’t remember it ever happening. That one choice is what’s causing these “irrelevance” and “out of touch” conversations to pop up again.
The Fassbender snub (possibly one of the worst in recent memory considering many believe it to be the best performance, male or female, of this year) just makes it worse, not to mention Albert Brooks and Drive nearly being shut out. But besides those three egregious errors, the nominations are fairly reasonable. I would’ve liked to see Dragon Tattoo and Fincher nominated, but besides EL&IC I can’t really complain about the other nominees. I personally think Tree of Life is too pretentious for its own good, but the mere fact that AMPAS recognized something so off-beat (in comparison to everything else) makes me benevolent about its inclusion.
I think he’s right about the campaigning. Nowadays it is more about who’s campaign is better rather than what performance is better. So every year, Harvey Weinstein gets his Actress nominee to get naked on the cover of GQ magazine and voilá! Oscar winner.
As for the quality of the films, I think the writer should pay attention to the People’s Choice Awards instead. That’s the place for ‘popular’ films.
I agree with with you 100% Alec, except Mr Palonr does not have an opinion, I doubt he even understands what films are. My partner read his article who is far more intelligent than me, and she didn’t find his point to put it politely.
@R Harry Potter’s last film had young adults
While Polone makes a couple of valid points, the minute anyone starts talking about how the Academy are out of touch because there nominations don’t reflect popular choices, I immediately tune out. This is an article that actually namechecks Wedding Crashers (!!!) as a supposed alternative because it was a “crowd-pleaser” (a term I would take further issue with because even though it made a lot of money, I know of nobody – and I’m betting most of you don’t either – that would look back upon that film with anything resembling pleasure).
Viewing figures for the cermony are not down because of the films that being recognised – they are down because the culture in general has little time and a fading interest in arts of all kinds. The majority of the ceremony acknowledges technical categories that the general public does not understand and is not bothered about. In such tabloid, celebrity-obsessed times, widespread interest in the Oscars comes down to catching a glimpse of the biggest stars and, let’s face it, there is already an abundance of access to them through any one of a multitude of different outlets. And the nature of the ‘stars’ that many spend their time watching/talking about are more of the Kardashian / Hilton variety than they are of the Clooneys or the Therons or the Goslings.
That’s a sad fact – but a fact it is nonetheless. So I wouldn’t anticipate the Oscar ceremony reviving its fortunes any time soon, it will simply have to accept its changing status in what is an increasing moribund culture, and those of us that do care will continue to do so excatly as we always have. The Academy may not be perfect, but the alternative suggested by Mr. Polone sounds dubiously close to what the MTV Movie Awards are and has merely taken advantage of some of this year’s less than worthy nominations to put forth a self-important, self-aggrandising sermon that seems built on the shakiest of foundations. Mr and Mrs Smith for Best Picture anyone?
Normal Oscar reactions:
Favorite film/performance gets nominated: “Wow!!! Oscars are great!!! I love Oscars!!”
Favorite film/performance does not get nominated: “F*** the Oscars!!!”
If you say ‘F*** the Oscars’, why do you want your favorite films/performances to be in contention at all for such awards? Isn’t it better if they are not considered?
This is one part about the ‘Post-Oscar-nomination-reaction’ of the movie-going public that I simply don’t understand. You say ‘Oscars suck’, yet you secretly hope that your favorite films/performances actually get nominated for the same awards that ‘suck’. As mentioned above, ‘douchebag’ is the best word to describe such people.
The movie-going people openly and unabashedly badmouth the Oscars (no harm in that). Yet, those are the same people who secretly hope and pray that their favorites get nominated for the same awards that they themselves badmouthed.
In other words, “Oscars suck, they are simply pathetic”, followed by, “I really hope my favorite film gets nominated for the Oscar”.
Brilliant logic.
I completely agree with this article. The nominees this year are simply below-par, even the nominations announcement seemed to be such a listless, lifeless, and boring affair. And the quality of the nominees keeps on deteriorating with each passing year.
It’s so clear that Gary Oldman received his (first-ever!!) nomination ONLY because he was ignored by the Academy all this while (nomination was actually for ‘career recognition’ rather that his performance in TTSS). Also, the (only) other reason why the Academy (grudgingly) chose to nominate him is because they could (now) shrug off the criticism that an actor of Oldman’s stature had never ever been previously nominated. Let’s face it. This will end up being his ONLY Oscar nomination for the rest of his life. In other words, the Academy will NEVER ever nominate him again, no matter what kind of projects he might take up in the future.
@Reichdome
So you like 3D – could you not have just said that?
3d is not the future, it isn’t even the present. It just a gimmick and a way to decrease piracy.
Branz and Bryan, you represent the naysayers, the shall we see overtly simplistic way of seeing things, the demographic that lacks an ability to look at the bigger picture- something that both Ryan of this great site and Gavin of Vulture.com clearly have. This article exposes the inconvenient truth tthat many like yourselves choose to ignore – the real and yes complicaTED BUT clear cut IRREFUTABLE problems that plague oscar yes i saying it cos i strongly overwhelmingly believe oscar is divorced from a balance between critical and public acclaim. No i don’t just disagree with half the writers on this particular blog but thankfully the other half who agree with Gavin’s article have the sense and smarts to look at the bigger picture.
Isn’t it obvious that conservative themed or obsucre films directed by older filmmakers ala Eastwood wins twice 2nd one veyr questionable – Scorcese well snubbed a lot bus suddenly the rush of love for the long snubbed and maybe soon to be 2 times in 3 years award winning director?
Look at the theme and style of Hugo adn the Artist two films that are prominent in this years oscar nominations. (Ok i withhold specific critique of Hugo but making the point of conservatism reigning at this years oscars like it did 30 years ago when at the time conservatism was ‘new’ ‘innovative’. Once upon a time, the roman epic was reluctantly embraced then it one once it one on numerous occasions.
It started with talks and raves then i think it was ‘Quo Vadis’ that brought the roman epic on the Hollywood map.
Then you had ‘Spartacus’, ‘Ben Hur’, and so hence once a genre does get its breakthrough it achieves recognition for that films particular genre over and over and over again every 2-3rd year in a decade regardless whether it wins best picture or not it based on number of nominations vs wins.
It seems to me and i never thought of it that the nature of conservatism to date as it always has been is the great desire for the reasons Gavin outlines to keep or stay with the status quo.
Conservatism in cinema is about resistance to evolution. It about resisting change. Even though as we like to think the academy members being former and even some of them current actors, directors technicians are intelligent enough with their own past or present expertise to use intellectual thought to NOT come to such overtly simplistic conlusions.
Yet they do- it seems to me whether it be musical, roman epic, war movie for instance each of these genre’s had what is affectionately known as the ‘golden era’ that is nominations and multiple award victories at the oscars more regularly than other genre’s per decade in a set period of 20-30 year time span.
Though some may accuse me of being pednatic i could argue the reign of the obsucre film is reminiscent to simplified film making and simplified filmmaking this year could well be ‘the artists’ a nod to the foundation of oscar’s first ceremony when the black and white silent film ‘wings’ comes into play in minds of the majority older oscars.
On the other hand oscar’s credibiltiy and resolve will be tested as Scorsese’s much touted ‘masterpiece’- i don’t know till i see it and i will see it soon. It must also be said most crucially that in the golden era’s of hollywoods now well established and once new film genre’s that films like Spartacus and Ben Hur, Longest Day and Bridge over River Qaui, Sound of Music and West Side story, as instances in either roman epic, war genre, or musical type films, wer both POPULAR AND CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED
It seems to me to suit the naysayer’s ends of those overtly simplistic opinionists in both the press and the public- a disturbingnly considerable amount in all movie forums thankfully not all. they omit the fact that once upon a time oscar embraced both the films that were both critically acclaimed- and popular.
When both Gladiator and Lord of the Rings were released ion their respective years, the world was enthused by the revival of old cinema using new technology the level of popularity, esp for lord of the rings trilogy in 3 years even taken in isolation, though it was an adaptation (but so were some of the above film titles that i mentioned to and then some more) that critic enthusiasm, press hype and popularity in the public arena had a rare enthusiasm of marriage that brought to light a return to oscar discovering some form.
How unfortunate then that simply for the pathetic excuse of oscar to ‘not gave into the big bucks’ that Avatar did not win best picture yes we back at this debate and why? Avatar may no be well written but of the above film titles past that went ont o win huyeg oscar can you honestly satheir writing overshadoved acting, artistic execution, visual and sound? everything was seen on a par when ‘ben hur’ won no one element was superior than the other same can be said for Return of the King- extremely well deserved more so than any other film who was a favourite and in contrast to their nomination win/loss ratio in the new millenium.
Yet Avatar had majority of the qualities that some of the great innovative films had- take into account yes in isolationa cting and writing was landmark for west side story but honestly does everyone remember west side story ‘just for it s performance? or is it the music, the numbers, the score, the sets?
The film genre BEING CELBRATED IN ITS MAXIMUM POTENTIAL. AND SO THIS HAS BEEN THE CASE AT ONE LEVEL WITJH LORD OF THE RINGS, BEN HUR, LONGEST DAY, SOUND OF MUSIC IT IS THE ENSEMBLE PIECE THAT SHOULD WIN MOST YEAR THE ONE WITH GREATEST ARTISTIC, WRITING, VISUAL, MUSIC AND PERFORMANCE CONSISTENCY NOT WHERE ONE OUTDOES THE OTHER
how else can we say that more so than any other time in oscar history has the best pictyure winner such as no country, million dollar baby, beautiful mind, crash, won no more than i think 5 oscars? yes it not about quantity but consider:
‘Return of the King’, ‘West Side Story’, ‘Ben Hur’, ‘Bridge over River Qaui’, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and yes i will include though it ‘only won 5 oscars unquestionably it shoudl have won much more ‘the sound of music’? It was the QUALITY OF AWARDS AS WELL AS QUANITTY AS IN AWARDS DISTRIBUTED FOR BALANCE BETWEEN PERFORMANCE, WRITING AND THE ARTS AND TECHNICAL
With Avatar a cinematic revolution has proven to be at hand as much as the naysayers like to think so again i sorry to say true cinematic achievment is dfined by its entirety not the sum of its parts. Same goes for my profession architecture- if architecture were defined by the sum of its parts not looking at all the components that make a built work of art, then well we have incomplete narrow focused buildings.
In looking at this analogy these ‘lesser’ oscar winners in quantrity have already proven to be diminished in quality and in popular discourse and film discussion over time.
In the end in Avatar’s year i found myself torn i kenw if ‘Hurt Locker’ won it meant the future is grim indeed for at least semi popular blockbusters that are both critically aclaimed onthe other hand i knew and conceded to you all in its win it won for both technical, glass ceiling was shattered for filmmaker as first female finally won, wonderfuld irecting oustanding writing and no cleche as a case study fo war despite my i concede lesser misgiving that it ommited the big picture of the iraq war a appreciated the balnce of acting writign and technicality not seen as on such a proficient display since lord of the rings and gladiator to a lesser obviously but similar level.
I knew also if Avatar got snubbed it would be a failure that would haunt oscar building ont he ghost which haunts them still of the snub of the great ‘dark knight’ – filmmakers are challenging oscars establishment to date and its great to see.
It means however, filmmakers themselves even those of the old craft like Cameron and Scorsese are seeing potential and value in the role of modern day technology.
3d has undergone a remarkabnle cinematic reovlution new life and appeal has been breathed into the medium but again i point out not since the silent era of film did cinema undergo such a transformation to its core as a medium. Now we have lucas’es much beloved start wars which let there be no doubt if Lucas feared diminishing his great classic hexilogy, he would not have greenlighted the film to be in 3d. that old classic like this are coming in 3d proves combined with scorcese undobuted masterful use of a classic style fmaily oreinted film of the old style bu using 3d if mnuch respected directors like lucas and Scorsese are using the technology thenthis vindicates cameron and co for feeling a sense of injustice at tyhe hand of the narrow and conservatist oscar.
It was a year i was torn. In Gladiator yes it dialogue was not always on the money but at the time with critics and audiences in awe of ben hur did anyone care to point out a minority moment of sloppy dialogue?
NO they appreciated the genre for how it evolved and what it brought to its time for pop culture entertainment.
Audiences are not being to dumb at all bryan and those other naysayers on the contrary they are drawing on influences from a range of medium and in this era of 24 hr media coverage of all things our own social opinions and discourse are shaped by the press as much as we hate to admit it i try my best not to.
I proud of that too. But even i admit i getr a bit tainted by the press coverage.
But if we learn to draw on influences form cinema history and less from press we can learn to IMPROVE OUR way of appreciating films.
Too much and too often i grow tired as a lot of and considerable no of intelligent articulate and big picture thinking film fans on this forums do as well the irrational ‘oh this film has cheesy dialogue’ or ‘the scruipt is not up to scratch’ and nowhere near enough marvelling at the collective cinematic ahivement of for instance cameron and co to brign together a vision and yes a story that does if we think outside the presses narrow view of the world, posed serious questions about our environemnt and our future packaged in an epic war style film and in 3d?
Nobody has dared criticize in all the coverage that years the direction of Cameron, nor did any one criticze the sweeping and inventive score, nor so the visuals or the innovative art design or the decision to cast the film in 3d- criticism of the acting well like the benchmark films of this time and the real benchmark films not the pretenders.
Foprget Shakespeare in Love it paled in significance tyo the real deseved winner of the most disgraceful snub in my lifetime to the real innovator or forget beautiful mind a film that built momentum offa smear campaign and isolated brilliant performances btu a scewed script that sugar coated as only conservative hollywood would do and fellowship of a ring a trilogy so grand and great in itr achivement both technical and in writign to brign to life simply the msot complex of adapted screenplays to life regardless again the naysayers about odd omissions of this scene or that, as film goers
we MUST ASK OURSELVES HAVE WE BEEN TOO HARD ON CAMERON’S AVATAR AND TOO HARD ON SOME FO THE MORE COMMERCIAL FILMMAKERS AND DO WE DO IT COS THE PRESS HAS A GREATER INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC OPINION? EVEN MORE SO THAN EVER ARTICLES IN THE PRESS ARE QUOTING OTHER SOURCES
it means as individuals we are at risk to letting other media both digital and traditional enhance our views. at the time of Ben hurs oscar win did indiviuals pan an minority aspect of a performance or writing even if the minimal press did? both were united both were in awe of william ayler’s adapted technicolour classic both formed a view form WHAT THEY SAW FELT AND EXPERIENCED
and hence this is where the real problem lies, it is fair tro say to a limited degree media complement social and cultural issues of the time.
But notwihstanding this sit and some mroe respectable online press, the media gets awash with heresay and gossip.
Sometimes i apalled by the alarmingly casual approach to writing i not talking typos something this writer professes to doing badly that simply my cavalier recklessness to online communications but at least people get my point
No i admit to ym shortcomings if the press start to accept responsiblity as a whole they are suppose to look at big picture take on board recent trends and constrast it with big picture history in film, arts music, even architecture, then we may say a revival for an appreciation for film as it intended to be NOT WHAT WE THINK IT SHOULD BE CAUSE IN PART IT WHAT THE MEDIA TELL US TO THINK
it disappointing to learn even for a universally acclaimed film that even respected organisations who still have limited bu mroe clout than toehrs at wards season and i should point out the fact that soem isolated critics but major organisations established like the enw york times and la times whose opinions oscar have been exposed on too many occassions for following presses decision on which film wins what critics award,
to finish, i poibnting out the real problems in the breakdown between what audiences want, what they hope for and what they expect vs what they source of incomration the mass digital and traditional media more opinionated more aggressive more arrogant and less accountable and big picture realistic perspective thinking than ever before riddled with small ideas.
ie when a lady sees a dress looks great on a billboard some will think looks snazzy maybe i can get itr and some us have been guilty of not taking into account rhe implications of cost. Yet it interesting in these economic times, we as beginning to question ourselves more and be more wary and maybe to have faith tpo trut our own judgement more on financial matters for instance and less to resist the media advertising of dresses household products once upon a time we spend spend spend no mroe than ever we learn to trust out own decisions on important matters to us. And hence i predict this will happen in the near future with movies.
Despite the record amount of digital advertising for retain and consumer p[roduycts how else do we epxlain record downturns in the western world of the enthusiasms for consumers to by from the retailer?
And it is happening already in the more intelligent quarters of both academia and more experienced corners of the press an emerging sense that pple are slowly but thankfully s8urely beginning to make decisions more on what they feel is best and take less notice of press opinions if this happens more and more i hope majority of public opinion fo films will be defined hence from the sum of the parts not the parts of the sum!
And as often happens the press will shift there focus it is a simon says principle eventually the press willfollow to publib thinking and at that pinnacle the pressure frpom outside will be greatest on socar to simple do the right thing EMBRACE THE FILM THAT WINS BEST PICTURE THAT DESERVES IT AND LESS BY POLITICS AND MEDIA IDEOLOGY LESS FROM A CLINGING TO A FROM FO THE PAST MORE TO EMBRACING CINEMA ‘S NEW REVOLUTION YES 3D!
How unfortunate then if Scorcese losese to the ‘Artist’ it will be because once again ‘oscar’ are ‘not ready’ to embrace 3d even if scorcese is challenging poscar in the way the presents hope that oscar will get some bloody sense knowcked into them. He is packaging a tradtiional style semi ‘oliver’ style film in presentation visuals and technical with the otward 3d presentation- hence scorcese is not just showcasing technology he is showcasning cinema in its traditional fomr literally and so oscar have dilemma and it hate to say it it is not ‘black and white’ the Artist MUST show a form of public appreciation and to a point box office is a factor it needs to make SOMETHING else a nothe null and void osar wihnner.
I no doubt Hurt Loccker as fabulous an osar achievment has plagued what i called the ‘obscurity curse’ and it makes a statement of an uncharacteistic bu sure enough emerging extreme violent arrogance that blindsides oscar as far as the public os concerend “screw you world we care only what critics and we think” However if ‘Hugo’ gets snubbed this year it also exposes OScar’s greatest dilemma to embrace the new demand in the public and in the film industry at large for the role of 3d not jusdt for some of the overtly scrappy and crappy misuse of 3d say final destination 3d and saw vbbloody 7 3d these films are a huge insult to the wonder and real potential of 3d cinema as enhancing cinema in our era in our time.
But a snub for Hugo will split the conservative establishment in Hollywood and THIS WILL be the year conservatives splinter i predict- and it really is of oscars own making entirely.
Had Avatar won that year best picture it would have meant a pleasant coexistence and harmony. But the very fact one of Hollywoods favourite Sons in Scorcese who is used 3d to brign to light a fmaily classic and semi children themed film nto done since hollywood lauded ‘Oliver’- is that a direector whom respects nad is himself conservative is asking a very inconvenient but extrmely important question challenge to oscar “can they overcome their bias against technology to see simply merit in extremely well made films can they accept that technology is changing and a\enhancning the way we asee cinema much like sound, notion and writing changed cinema in hollywoods old era?
Or REGARDLESS IT WAS MADE BY A NO NAME FOREIGN DIRECTOR, THE ARTIST A BLACK AND WHITE SILENT FILM BUT IS THERE MORE TO IT THAN THAT? in truth a lot may ot want to admiy it but the reality is that film surely has more stryle than substance to give the film an award for best picture why? cos it gives a chance for oscar to celebrate its foundation? more to the point to celbrate a style visually that ‘convenient’ to appease the conservatives?
Yet even Spielberg praised ‘Avatar’ a director renowned for films in the old style as he is breaking new ground- this year herald the arival of what i confirmed the emerging and evntual silent majority the ‘soft conservatives’ Where Spielberg and Scorcese inv ery different ways embraced the new medijm of cinema to say this is the future and we believein it it part of the traditional way and scrposese proving it can coexist.
2 directors who are bpth oscar members whoa re rightfully sympathetic to thew progressive establisghment abnd make no mistake it is growing in momentum and if the Artists wins deserved for itself or nto (qand who knows i already pissed off cause i want to see it for myself how wide in realease it will be or have distributors chosen aN OBSCURE VEYR LIMTIED RELAEASE LIKE THE SDI THE HURT LOCKER THAT YEAR?
it will be a blessing in disguise for conservative estbalishment for oen simple reason,.
Oscar is in love with Marty and why not? he is as enamoured with sonservative filmmaking as anyoen the director who in aviator brought to life hollywoods golden era in all it period glory, who it has to be said in the spac eof 5 or 6 years has achieved a level of oscar influen and prominence rightfully after being so long overdue and soo many snubs for films he DESERVES to get recognition for. infacvt between his film, he has achived on a aprwith Spielberg in his gold era in the 1990’s, something like a record 30n oscar nominations in his last 3 films or thereabaouts! i could think of no other director more deserving
Bearing in mind the last time marty won coukld he make it 2 for 2? If he does and he deserves it i reckno his film MIGHT BUT DONT KNOW TILL IS EE IT,..
but with Scporcese and Spielberg res[ect and influence in hollywood there footp[rints on a par with hitchcock, oscar abd hammersteiunm david io selznick, etc, and oscra knwo it, and oscar know there vuiews couint for something they will surely regrate a premature embrace a visaully silent style bnalck and white film they will question their own deciosions and al we can hope for as the progressive who appreciate limited place for conservative cinea’s dominnace to date, is that filmmakers more and more of the spil;eberg and scorcese callibre experiment and invest in 3d potential for whether like it or not it is thanx to Cameronwe are finmally having this debate.
Watch this space it wont happen this year then again it might and if it does oscar will finally start to see the light.
but it will happen oscar will reavalauteas they\welcome young and really talented players to their ranks. and combined with scorseces and speilbertg adn cameron unleashing an huge embrac eof neqw technology with their awesome visual and exectutioners film prowess, oscar wil in maybe 5 years at most embrace the new ways and when innovative films aren’t that brillaint or are overrated it will be ok to embrace smaller films then we finall;y achieve a balance in harmony between new ways of filmmakking and the old.
All eyes are on Hugo in the public real to see if Sorcese can make cinema history and should he win change the face and enhance the reputation int he public eye pof oscar we live in hope…
@Dennis
Yes it is a ridiculous comment for mine, yours and a few others…
The interesting thing to ask ourselves is why is it ridiculous? I cannot answer that question.
“Can you really say that Borat didn’t deserve a nomination but Letters From Iwo Jima did?”
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
best comment oscar goes to Jorge 😀
When Jack Nicholson said “Crash” (and then a moment later, “whoa!”), that was the last I watched of the Oscars. Its not just that Brokeback Mountain is a masterpiece and arguably the best film of the decade (at decade-end list, its only English-language competitors were There Will Be Blood, Eternal Sunshine & Mulholland Drive; and to a lesser extent, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), many many great films have lost, and the Academy rarely chooses the so-called best (and yes, there is an objective standard by which to measure art; it might not be absolute, but there are guidelines, to say the least; Crash fails miserably). Its because the Academy was virtually the only group to succomb to homophobic threats of boycott and no give Brokeback its Best Picture prize. Ernest Borgnine and Tony Curtis both said that they and all their [old fart bigot] friends in the Academy wouldn’t even watch it “because John Wayne would roll over in his grave.” The Board of Governors didn’t decry its members, or distance themselves from comments like that. They didn’t utter a peep, which is unforgivable. And they basically admitted their members don’t even have to watch the then 5 Best Picture nominees to vote. That too is unforgivable. And then, worst of all, they followed along. I don’t miss the Oscars, I won’t be back.
Also, Sasha, you often say The Social Network loss breaks the most precedents. In terms of sheer numbers, perhaps, as more and more critics groups have popped up in the past 5 -10 years. But if you look at the “Big 10” (something in my head only, but take a look), nothing else with its 9/10 credentials has lost (not to mention another 20 or so Best Picture prizes, incl. Venice):
Golden Globe
Broadcast Critics
New York Critics
Los Angeles Critics
BAFTA
Most Nominations
Producers Guild
Writers Guild
Directors Guild
SAG (its sole loss; but for the umpteenth time, that’s not a best picture prize, its an acting ensemble prize, and Crash certainly was an ensemble (albeit a messy one, from very fine like Thandie Newton and Don Cheadle to overrated like Matt Dillon to unwatchable like Sandra Bullock and Ryan Phillipe; and besides, Brokeback had 3 acting nominees (really all its principals of major roles, Ann H was wonderful but the role was too small to be the 4th), while Crash had 1; that certainly strong support in the acting branch, so it would seem)
Sorry, but the National Board of Review is old but has been irrelevant for years, many of their Best Picture winners aren’t even nominated for Oscars (Brokeback won Director there, was presumably #2 to Good Night & Good Luck). And the National Society of Film Critics, while prestigious, has matched the Academy what, maybe 4 or 5 times since their inception in 1966? I could go on. Anyhow, all those, about 30 Picture prizes and about 35 or so director prizes and always a top 2 or 3 finish everywhere, with Crash not even nominated for the Globe, one of only 2 Oscar winners since 1943 to have that dubious dishonor, The Sting being the other in category confusion between Drama & Comedy), plus top box office among the nominees (and the Box Office Mojo top box office story of the year), plus its status as a cultural zeitgeist then and even still thick in gay rights discussions (with that heinous Rick Perry doning the Brokeback jacket & hat to bash gay rights), led to the biggest shoe-in front-runner since Schindler’s List, and certainly among the biggest ever. But Ernie and Tony and their dinosaur pals wouldn’t watch the great film. So I won’t watch the Oscars. It ain’t because the best film lost, that’s almost always the case. Its because of the undeniable evidence why it lost.
I’m just, pardon the political un-correctness of this next word, pooped out with discussing a sub-par lineup of Oscar nominees from a sub-par year of filmmaking. When two major films get nominated that aren’t released nationally until 2012, it’s time to just step back and wonder if all this hubbub is worth it.
Gavin Polone exec produced one of TV’s best shows of the past 15 years (Gilmore Girls), so I tend to listen to someone who’s been around quality TV.
Mel I feel the same way, it makes me sick that the TGWTDT was snubbed but I’m just guna try and get over it and just because it wasnt a bp nod, doesnt mean that I enjoy it any less or that its not a masterpiece, it will still be my favorite film of the year! I look forward to buying the bluray disc and viewing it a couple more times and I’ll definitely go watch the sequel when it comes out! Sorry for whining everyone but i just love that movie!
I read this piece this morning elsewhere and it made me feel validated in my disappointment.
I’m gonna be honest though…..I know my favorite movie this year was excellent. It brought me much joy. So much joy I went to see it in the theater 4 times…and I might possibly go again, though I have a screener of it now and might just keep the obsession within my own 4 walls. Oh, but back to what I was gonna be honest about…..I have to look inside and admit I’m mostly upset and bummed b/c it makes the show less exciting for me.
I want to care more about the show and be nervous and giddy….and I’m sorry, but the inclusion of EL&IC truly makes me want to vomit. I’m trying to figure out when I will get over it, but (time for another moment of honesty) I feel as though I get more and more pissy about it with each hour. I’m not going to pretend I’m ok with it. I’m not. Though I do have the inclusion of my film in nearly all the other places it matters and I guess that will be my pacifier. But I don’t get to sit down with junk foods, booze and friends and celebrate all those other awards.
All I can say is THANK GOD for Rooney Mara…it will at least keep my heart in it til somewhere near the end.
And Jorge is my hero. I just now read his threads and I could not have put it better. (Ryan, you’re still my uber-hero)
Re: the odd Borat/Letters from Iwo Jima reference. Polone is the long-time former agent for Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. Director Larry Charles (who helmed Borat) has directed many episodes of both ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm.’ So no doubt there are some sour grapes there since Polone feels his pal (and, for I know, former client) got jobbed.
“Have the Oscars always maintained the same esteem in all our eyes? Have there been good years, bad years? (good decades, worse decades?) If somebody feels something he cares about is ailing, should he ignore the sick symtoms, watch it get worse, maybe collapse altogether?”
Not at all but to bash it to the point of mutilation–well then you don’t care about it any longer, do you. And that’s what this “journalist” does. He’s not “advocating for improvement, Ryan. You might be but he’s just out to destroy it and everything it stands for.
I’m very upset with the Academy! The BROKEBACK mess started it. I was ashamed and vowed to stop watching altogether. Then I stopped sulking. I wasn’t the greatest fan of NO COUNTRY (so stone me!) as I felt THERE WILL BE BLOOD was the masterpiece that year. Then SLUMDOG fucked with MILK and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD (not even nominated!) Honestly, with AVATAR vs. THE HURT LOCKER–I loved both and was happy to see a great film recognized but then, THE KING’S SPEECH! How to get over the Academy not selecting one of the most groundbreaking films of the decade (yes, THE SOCIAL NETWORK)…and this year my faves–which I think truly represent amazing achievements in film (SHAME and MELANCHOLIA) were ignored. Sure, I’m upset, but I refuse to do what Gavin does–simply try and negate the good the Academy represents.
Speaking up is wonderful and that’s what you and Sasha and even, Wells do so well. I’m pretty good at it too–and I refuse to shut up. Fassbender was robbed. Tilda was robbed. Give me a fucking break with Melissa McCarthy already! Fincher deserves recognition. We shouldn’t ever shut up. But to bash just to devastate…that doesn’t really achieve much now does it?
Ryan, I just saw that you posted it. My sincere apologies to Sasha. I love you Ryan…and I get to take you on now!!!!
But people are talking about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo as if it was a major blockbuster…. it`s not.
And I see lots of contradictions. It`s being said that the Academy loses touch with the reality. It actually looks like they don`t really do so. The King`s Speech made 40 million dollars more than The Social Network in the US and about 300 million more worldwide. It looks like public preferred The King`s Speech. We (most of the people here) didn`t. We`re not reality, not general public and I think we all know that.
Ryan, thanks for correcting my mis-impression. I feel like your Dragon Tattoo story though is a good example of what I’m saying: I think if websites like yours continue to stick out for what they really like, then people will talk, traffic will increase, and things will get noticed and maybe not crack the elite BP nods but get respectable showings. Some years more than others, and of course, depending on the movie.
I should perhaps clarify that I didn’t mean that you guys would alter your CHOICES or your preferences to try to agree with what you think the Academy would do, I just think that predictions (which I love doing, and are one of the reasons I visit your website) sometimes tend to become somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s no one’s fault, no one has an evil master scheme, but I do think that human nature being what it is, things become so because people predict them to be so.
Ironically given my statements in the first post, I’m not sure how to fix that problem (if you even agree it’s a problem, which you likely don’t). I don’t advocate not predicting, that’s the whole fun of it. But I do think there’s a sheep-mentality that takes over and that may result in bad things. (I mean, after all, critics loved the Artist and Hugo, and the Academy went for those).
Thanks, as always, for one of the best sites of the Internet.
Jorge, you comment and fine followup clarification don’t need any fixing at all.
I could already see we were on the same wavelength about breaking free from consensus in order to bring attention to contenders outside the preordained box. I wasn’t so much disagreeing or correcting you — it’s obvious that you understand the dynamics. I was only using your point as a theme where I could riff and bounce off a deeper explanation of what movie writers sometimes try to do (and ought to do).
It’s important to choose the battles wisely, but simple formulaic prediction without passionate advocacy would be too tedious to bear. We find movies and filmmakers to excite us — knowing that sincere enthusiasm excites the site and might stir up helpful attention at large.
That’s why I wanted to be clear — we don’t fret and express contrary opinions just because we like to play cranky. We do it sometimes hoping to inspire pro-active changes in attitude. Even if it’s a few attitudes every week, it feels good to take a step in the right direction.
Ryan,
This isn’t the first article you’ve positively presented that insists that the Oscars are irrelevant, out-of-touch, etc… And that’s totally fine. You don’t have to like the Oscars, the choices they make or whatever else you may not like about them. The thing I don’t get is that you write for a blog called “Awards Daily”. A lot of the people who come to this blog because we, for whatever reason, LIKE the Oscars. Every time I see an article basically telling me that the thing I like enough to read blogs about is dumb, it’s like a slap in the face. If this is how you feel, why do you even bother? If you just like writing about films, go and start a blog about films and then rant away about how you don’t like Oscar politics or whatever. Or change the name of this blog. Or whatever. It just doesn’t make sense to me that this blog is ostensibly about awards, and then you go trying to tell me that awards don’t matter.
And for another matter, I don’t always agree with the Oscars either. For me and a lot of people I know they’re kind of like the Super Bowl of cinema. Your favorite team doesn’t always make it to the big show, but it’s still fun to see who wins.
Every time I see an article basically telling me that the thing I like enough to read blogs about is dumb, it’s like a slap in the face. If this is how you feel, why do you even bother?
That’s not how I feel, Jasmine and you shouldn’t either.
You say you don’t always agree with Oscars so we have that in common. It’s nice that you can be more quiet about it than I am. But just because my disagreements are louder doesn’t mean my intentions are any less nice than yours.
I never say awards don’t matter. To the contrary — I say there are many awards that matter. The Oscars don’t matter very much more to me than the AFI or the Spirits, or the BAFTAs. They all matter to me.
Relax people…. every year is different! 2011 was a mediocre year for blockbusters. The only viable BP nomination was Harry Potter, which should have been nominated but that`s life. Curious that in the past two Oscars, the highest grossing film of the year was a BP nominee. In 2009, 1/2 of the BP noms made more than 100 million dollars. 3 made more than 200 and 1 made more than 700. In 2010, 1/2 made more than 100 millions again. 1 made about 400, another about 300, 1 about 200, the winner made 135 and another one made about 100.
Next year when The Hobbit makes millions and millions, gets a bunch of nominations, when they give The Dark Knight an apologize nomination and when Pixar comes back to normality no one will be talking about this. Don`t generalize! Every year is different! We`ll have our Lincolns, Gatsbys, The Masters (Paul Thomas Anderson/ Harvey) but we`ll probably have the blockbusters! If they are good as I think they will be, they will be welcomed to the Oscars. Remember: the Academy only changed again the BP rule after seeing the results (who would be the BP nominees) in the past 8 years I think so. They might have noticed WALL-E and The Dark Knight. If those blockbusters are great as those 2, they are in.
Like any colossal institution, the Oscars will never change.
@Ryan Adams: The initial praise you guys gave for Rooney Mara drew me into the site. Even if I had disagreed with your assessments, I’d still be impressed with the ability you and Sasha have to create cogent displays of passion, which in film writing can be a tough trick. And to those who whine about personal feelings getting in the way, I’m sure that when you see your site hits skyrocket with every intensely composed post, you have the last laugh.
Stupid article. All awards are like that. How many times have we cringed when the Cannes jury gives the “prestigious” Palm d’Or to a piece of garbage no one sees?
True, it’s beyond me why the Academy nominates Puss in Boots over Cars 2 or Rio, or Extremely Loud over Dragon Tatoo. But it’s nice to see recognition so many others.
@Jake G.!
Wow, you’re only 14? Cool that you’re on the site and even cooler that you’re a champion for Dragon Tattoo. Use what you read on film as a supplement to the movies you see, not the other way around and you’ll be in great shape.
@Jake G – my feeling is TGWTDT was one, maybe two away from a nomination. Which means they’re not out of touch just collectively didn’t pan out.
Its alright, i was just stating my opinion! I just hate to see brilliant modern films like TGWTDT get snubbed because the older voters couldnt handle it! Its such a shame to me when a movie like EL&IC boots a masterpiece like dragon tattoo because its more of an Oscar type film! It ruins the whole purpose of the “Best Pictures” of the year! Heck they shouldve just nominated The Iron Lady and My Week With Marilyn if they were going to nominate weakly reviewed oscar bait.
I don’t think AMPAS is out of touch, even though they rarely marry up with my choices.
And you can’t really say that without seeing the entire voting process.
Tinker Tailor and The Girl Tattoo were obviously close for a BP nod considering their other nominations in Lead Acting, Screenwriting and Editing. A Separation also seems to have been close.
These may have not been the BO champions of the year but they are a good representation of the good films this year. The distance between BO and AMPAS is the audience unwillingness to go see something that isn’t highly kinetic.
In short the audience is out of touch with quality and I believe should be put down.
The article is just ignorant, sophomoric drivel. His rage is exhausting. The not very well buried point is that his choices are not nominated or do not win. He needs to take a cold shower or have a stiff drink.
Sorry, Jake G. Didn’t read your post all the way through: No need to call a 14 year old a fool…(makes me look like a fool, really)
Not buying into this guy’s arguments. He sounds like he’s got a gripe against the Oscars without having much interest in movies to begin with. His logic is all over the place, not really deep enough to sound very convincing.
The key for me was his “‘nothing worth seeing’ malaise” reference, which would never be made by a true film fan or oscar-watcher.
This was probably a writing assignment, not an inspired rant.
“They overlooked the undisputed Best Picture of the year”
You mean Capote?
He has lots of points, but no real point at all. This man is no fan of films. Beware of sheep in alarmist clothing.
I’ll copy my thoughts from the comment thread there to here then add a few more:
“This article can’t be taken seriously. It’s full of self-serving statements and very little persuasive argument. Oscar viewership is down. “Clearly,” the author writes with no support whatsoever for his statement other than his own say so, “this is because audiences feel alienated from the choices of nominations and winners.” Did the author read an exit poll of Oscar watchers or TV goers maybe? Or how does he know this?
If the Academy wishes to increase Oscar viewing by picking better nominations, should it reward the popular movies that end in numbers (which tend to be the highest grossing each year, see Harry Potter 7.2) that the author of the piece seems to despise?
Perhaps the more intelligent explanation for declining Oscar viewership is not in the choices the Academy makes, but in another fact in this piece: movie viewership is down not just this year, but consistently across the decades. The public has other options in entertainment, and instant gratification is part of our culture. Many people prefer shorter shows than 2 hour affairs. It is simply the state of our society, not necessarily an indictment of movies or of the Oscars.
If the Oscars nominated more Do the Right Thing or other indie, smaller productions, then viewership would certainly decrease and the Oscars would be accused of being out of touch with the masses. If the Oscars nominated the Hangover and X-Men First Class, they’d be accused of being popularity whores out for ratings (see Golden Globes).
The article contains several other evil sounding bits that are not really insightful. Big surprise: money is involved in the race and money corrupts! Wow, I never saw that one coming.
And yeah, it is not “Best Picture” any more than it is the “WORLD Series” or “Miss UNIVERSE” – we use monikers, short hands. Anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence will realize that “Best Picture” really means the movie that the Academy thought was best that year, and which was released and seen widely in North America. It is not the Best Movie of the World For The Year Unarguably, and the Academy does not pretend or argue otherwise. Attacking the “best Picture” label is setting up a strawman to have something to knock down.”
Additional thoughts – some of the negative reactions to Oscar nominations tell us a lot about ourselves as humans, as critics (those who are), as prognosticators, and tell us a lot about Oscar voters too.
Humans, by nature, like to feel the comfort of being right, of having their choices approved by others, of feeling like we belong. Some more some less than others, but I’m generalizing. Like Ryan says, if we care about something we speak up for it – if we didn’t mind, we wouldn’t talk, we just wouldn’t care enough to speak. This frustration with feeling like our own choices were not validated is the only thing that explains the irrational reactions some across the net have had to the Fassbender snub (by the way, I agree it is a pitiful snub, a true shame that perhaps the best acting job of the year went unnoticed here). There is frustration, and yet VERY FEW of the mainstream bloggers have said: “Well, I think Bichir should have been out.” On the contrary, we’ve fawned over the inclusions of Oldman and Bichir and, apparently on the coattails of The Artist love, even Dujardin. No one touches Clooney and Pitt’s performance is almost universally praised. So is our complaint about Fassbender…that there aren’t 6 slots? Or, who exactly should go out? I’ve heard few answer that question. I agree with Ryan – stand up and express your opinion if something isn’t going right. But to extend his “America is not doing well” analogy, politicians with solutions tend to get elected more often than those who just complain about the problems.
More importantly, in the realm of “what can WE do to change it,” the human nature reality of “liking to be liked and feeling like we belong” that I allude to here, tells us something even more crucial. A lot of these nominations and results come out on buzz, which is another word for the fait accompli of what critics and Oscar pundits around the net start to predict. A performance comes out, critics like it and it gets “buzz”, and us Oscar prognosticators start putting it on side bars and short lists saying: “This is going to get nominated.” And everyone else falls in line (to a degree, of course, the performance has to be respectable, you can’t just “make fetch happen”). But this “because everyone says so” mentality is very real. Studies have shown that large swaths of undecided voters in elections vote for the person they THINK is going to win, not for whom the think SHOULD win, simply because they want the comfort of picking the “Right” choice. Which is why buzz and being liked by the media is so important in politics.
The same applies to Oscar voting, I posture. Voters read that all critics and all prediction websites are saying: “Obviously Dujardin” is a lock for Best Actor and I’m sure that a proportion of them will say: “Well, I guess he must be” and vote for him, some without even seeing his film (or Bichir, or whomever). So, in the realm of “doing something about it,” maybe the responsibility lies with us, those buzz creators, not to go with the flow of whatever everyone else is saying and simply stick to our own choices.
This of course is NEVER going to happen. Why? Because no one likes to be wrong, and websites would be out of business if they didn’t predict the Oscars right, so they’re ALWAYS going to stick to the popular, “buzz” choices. This perpetuates the cycle.
In short, I suggest that in complaining about some of the Academy’s choices, we stop and reflect a bit about what us as moviegoers, critics, prognosticators, etc., do on a daily basis to cause the results we are unhappy with.
(PS, I’m not defending the Academy, I’ll never get over things like Crash v. Brokeback, TKS v. TSN, etc. I’m just saying, along the lines of “What can we do to change things?”, here’s my proposal: let’s stop treating every race like faits accomplis every year and be more willing to exhibit diversity of opinion)
Jorge,
That’s a really nicely written rebuttal and you make many great points. I don’t agree with everything you say but neither do I agree totally with the Vulture article itself.
One thing I have to let you know you’re off about though:
Nope. Not true. Jorge, nobody enjoys being wrong but I assure you that it doesn’t matter a damn to me or to anybody else if I’m wrong about guessing what the wacky impossibly unpredictable Academy might do from one year to the next.
Nobody who guessed the most nominations correctly this year got a dollar more than the dope who guessed everything wrong.
Nobody’s website would go out of business for failing to accurately guess this stuff — if it worked that way 10 websites we all know would be closed down today — and they’re not.
Sasha and I talked about how to best handle our genuine feelings about Rooney Mara being worthy of consideration. We knew we’d have to deal with a lot a silly snark and annoying ridicule.
We didn’t give a shit. We didn’t care if anyone else thought Mara had a chance — we had no idea if she did! All we cared about was supporting the movie we liked, fighting the good fight for something we believes in — when everybody else was sneering about what a failure Dragon Tatto was, we stuck up for it.
Within days we got lucky. We got what we dared to dream for. Honors began rolling in from guilds, box office stayed strong, and the film began to be reevaluated.
Wishing for a nomination was not the safe way to go. It could have horribly wrong. We just got lucky, that’s all.
But either way, right or wrong, traffic around all the Dragon Tattoo articles spiked like crazy — the economics of a blog thrives when there’s disagreement. Safe sheepish writing is a boring deadend. Who cares about a web site that’s only going to parrot the common consensus?
If we had been wrong, so what? So what?! There is no “wrong” the way I see it.
A lot of our hopes didn’t materialize last year, but I don’t think we got it wrong — I think the Oscars were wrong.
No matter who *you* may think is wrong, please note: Neither the Oscars nor Awards Daily went out of business.
Everybody thrives on conflicting wishes. So what’s the point of playing it safe and being bored?
Jesus? What’s wrong with people over 60?? Are Marty and cohorts nothing but old farts? Can’t they have a reasoned opinion about the movies of 2011? I mean, most of the people you refer to were active and became members of the Academy in the counter-cultural heyday of the old Hollywood in the 60s and the early 70s, often referred to as a golden era. They are more than 60 now, you know? They count for nothing?
If you think it is easy to think of any problem you might have with the academy as an age issue, go ahead. You are making a fool of yourself in the process.
This is a brilliant article! I understand where he is coming from! The Academy awards are presenting themselves as schlapstick pussies! Old men who vote for movies that make them feel good and satisfied, or movies that remind them of the olden days! No wonder the Oscars ratings have dropped! The Best Picture nominees are films that barely anybody has ever even heard of(except the people who follow awards coverage like me), instead they could be nominating better films that even satisfy the average viewer like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, a modern masterpiece thats to gritty for old men, but perfect for people under the age of 60! I know the Oscars arent for the average viewers, but they could still nominate the modern films that are much better than the sappy dramas they nominate! The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo snub was the worst snub Ive ever seen! I’m SOOO pissed off and I wont get over it for a long long time! I probably wont come back to this website to check on Oscars til about this summer or even later, because Ive come to the conclusion that their opinions of Best Picture dont matter to me anymore! I guess I should just wait until I’m older to watch the Oscars because their 80 year old opinions are much different than my 14(yes im 14) year old opinion.”The Trick is not minding”! Thats a brilliant saying! I’m tired of watching snubs already and Ive only been watching Oscars for about four years! When I’m a movie director(my dream job and I will achieve it), I hope they dont snub me:)
Well, nobody really agrees with this guy, then? Phew.
Just to make my own point clear: Recent winners include The Departed, No Country For Old Men and The Hurt Locker and The Social Network was last years’ initial frontrunner and it was nominated alongside wondrous indie cinema like Winter’s Bone.
Besides: Isn’t it really ok that best picture of the year gets to be a choice that speaks to a larger demographic than a small, elitist group of refined tastemakers? I think so. It wouldn’t be relevant otherwise.
There is no need to look down upon people who sincerely like ELIC or The Blind Side (sorry for making that comparison, Scott Rudin!), we just have to accept that those movies are being liked for a reason, whether it is some vague sense of ideology or pure emotionalism. I don’t think less of Oscar as an institution for including ELIC or The Help per se, if they are truly beloved movies, so be it.
One thing that frustrates me though, is the politics of Oscar. That money matters as much as it does. That you have to play the game in order to be in contention. The odds are against the Tilda Swintons of this world, when money and exposure are the deciding factors. When a cover on EW decides who are the frontrunners of the season etc.
But minor gripe aside; when you have 6,000 people decide on anything, the consensual vote will tend towards the mainstream. Let’s just celebrate the fact that sometimes the mainstream can be convinced that a film like The Hurt Locker is really the best of the year. That’s amazing, if you think about it.
So TKS won last year; a fluke? Perhaps. The pendulum swings back and forth. No big mystery (well, yes, that IS the mystery!). This year they will select a French silent movie in black and white? Yes, Harvey spoon fed them this particular movie. But, really: Isn’t that, in essence, a more adventurous choice than we have any right to expect from a group of 6,000 people? I think it isn’t half-bad. Things are looking pretty good when you think about it…
I think this guy, Gavin Polone, does have some interesting and strong points. I agree with the essence of his article especially when he says “the Oscar has lost its relevance and value”. Personally, I think the Academy put the final nail in their own coffin 6 years ago when, contrarily to virtually every other organization, they overlooked the undisputed Best Picture of the year, Ang Lee’s unforgettable masterpiece Brokeback Mountain, and instead crowned the unbearably manipulative, preachy & distasteful Crash. AMPAS then lost the little credibility it had left and its reputation has been besmirched for good. The only time I watched the Oscars during the last decade was in 2006. What a joke that was! What a let down! I don’t bother anymore; I don’t have any interest in designer gowns.
The author makes a good point – the Academy has a large portion of pretentious members who are often out-of-step with the general public.
For the most part, I’m grateful that their tastes are different otherwise you would end up with another rendition of The People’s Choice Awards (as someone else noted).
I am disappointed that they ignore comedies they way they do. It’s unbelieveable that such a broad category is left out and it’s only gotten worse over the years.
Ryan, Gavin is not trying to improve anything. He’s just whining and looking forward to the day that the Oscar telecast follows the path of the Miss America pageant. It’s a rather pointless article. He doesn’t seem to care too much about the industry.
I’m not Gavin Polone’s disciple. (never heard of him until today).
Not joining his club or proselytizing on his behalf.
Just thought some of his frustrations were valid. Just share some of his sentiments.
I don’t expect him to solve any problems or have any answers.
He doesn’t sound miserable to me but even if he is I’m not as gloomy as he is about the future of the Oscars.
Likewise for more populist films. There are awards that regularly go to those too. If they aren’t getting nominated for Best Picture, ask not why AMPAS is out of touch, but why the studios are making such crappy tentpoles. Look at the top 20 grossing films of 2011. How many would make unembarrassing Best Picture nominees? If I’m very generous, I get to maybe four. MAYBE.
The whinging is just especially weird because it’s happening this year. Six wide releases topped 80 on Metacritic last year; five of them are nominated for Best Picture. THE TREE OF LIFE is nominated for both Picture and Directing. Fans of Cinema Kewl have much to celebrate. But celebrating isn’t kewl. If you open your mouth to cheer, your clove cigarette might fall out of your mouth.
“Favorite Picture of 6000 Academy Voters” rather than “Best Picture,” eh? Must every voting body rename their awards to make them more self-degrading? Which films would better wear the sash of Best Picture Nominee? SHAME? UNCLE BOONMEE? MELANCHOLIA? Guess what: bodies exist that honor those films. And they get to call their award “Best Picture” too. If you want more attention and resulting financial benefit for those films, work to increase the profile of awards like the NSFC and festivals like Cannes and Venice. Moaning at AMPAS does nothing but make all our eyes hurt from rolling.
Apropos not a whole lot – but when i read Gavin’s name – i remembered where i had seen it – as a Producer of “Curb your enthusiasm” – one of my favourite shows – ever!
I hope it is not an all or nothing scenario – the Oscars nominate ‘art’ movies every year – have done since they began – and they occasionally nominate crowd pleasers – are they one and the same – sometimes – but i don’t ever expect AMPAS to reward populist fare – the statue does still stand for something – or else, why is anybody at all invested in this stuff? This site and countless others would not exist if people did not look to AMPAS for their choices and the prestige it anoints the winners with.
I have been exposed to many new films and filmmakers thanks to submerging in the race. It is not the only source of moviedom, thankfully, but a significant one. In my growing up years, i would not have known about filmmakers like Richard Attenborough, Hal Ashby, Herbert Ross, Alan Parker and Woody Allen were it not for Oscar! The Battle of Midway and Star Wars were the only talking points or Freaky Friday and The Poseidon Adventure! I could list many many more – but won’t!
It is the dysfunctional human being – the Academy – but i love it anyway, even with its faults and flaws. I always will.
these are the National Book Award Oscars. The films are more or less well made, excellently made in some cases, but they do not have grandeur…..actual powerful cultural impact.
It’s not just the Oscars and the Academy. It’s the films.
Good lord. Talk about an overreaction. He needs to step back from the ledge.
I cringed when I read that first article earlier today and I’m glad more people agree. I actually thought that it was satire when I first read it. Despite some exceptions, the Academy, IMO, does a very good job at selecting the winner and nominees almost every year.
As for the Netflix Top 100, I’m surprised The Help isn’t on there. I’ve had it at the top of my queue for weeks and they still haven’t sent it, so I’ve not been able to see it.
It is strange, this.
Why spend so much time and effort talking about something you loathe? If you fully agree with the above article, I really don’t see any reason for being a dedicated follower of this thing. Is it self-hate? Some sort of flagellantism? And what does it say about the integrity of all of us? Why wallow in all of this, if we find it so unbearably miserable?
Is it somehow easier to feel superior because the Oscars are such an easy target? “I am an island of refined taste in a sea of mediocrity”..is that it? Either way, it is the (too) easy route…
Have the Oscars always maintained the same esteem in all our eyes? Have there been good years, bad years? (good decades, worse decades?)
If somebody feels something he cares about is ailing, should he ignore the sick symtoms, watch it get worse, maybe collapse altogether?
What if we felt that way about our countries? Our roads? The dishes stacked in the kitchen sink?
Just let things deteriorate? Rot away without remark? Shrug it off?
Or fucking say something about it. Advocate for improvement. Dream of something better and work toward making a difference.
We get the government we allow. We get the relationships we pursue.
If I’m not 100% satisfied with America and I say so, it doesn’t mean I want to move away. If I’m not feeling fulfilled by a job, I don’t throw a fit and quit.
If I’m not happy with something, I don’t “wallow in misery.” I try to find ways to hope and cope.
I deal with the disappointments and frustrations by trying to make things better.
I don’t even care if my efforts are useless; never expect to get everything I want. Speaking our minds is supposed to be energizing, isn’t it? It is for me. How is being outspoken demoralizing?
Some of us deal with things we think are flawed by speaking up.
If some of the rest of you prefer to give up and shut up then please do that.
I love this article. I have given up on the Oscars because my taste is completely different, campy, violent, etc. It’s just not in tune at all with what the Oscars like to award. I still love red carpets and lots of celebs so I eat it up every year. I’m a sucker for awards season.
But I just can’t take it too seriously when my favorite movies of the year (We Need to Talk About Kevin, Young Adult, Shame, ETC) were all snubbed.
An article “packed with potent good sense???”
Seriously, Sasha?
It’s packed all right.
🙂
FrankieJ, I posted this and wrote the intro.
[fists balled up]
Wow letters from iowa jima was a clint eastwood masterpiece. Borat was a gimmick film that has aged badly
Damn. Don’t hold back, Gavin.
It’s a good article but I have to take issue with this part:
Instead of calling the ultimate award given at the Oscars “Best Picture,” they should really call it “the Favorite Picture of the Roughly 6,000 Academy Voters.”
What’s his point with that? Isn’t it obvious that “Best Picture” is chosen by individuals not by godly objectivity, and that any Best Picture award is thus a “Best Picture according to the voters” award ?
@MJS
Lol, just saw your post after I finished writing mine. Are you me?
“Can you really say that Borat didn’t deserve a nomination but Letters From Iwo Jima did?”
Lolwut? I’m not sure he could have picked two worse examples as far as I’m concerned.
As far as whether or not receiving a nomination benefits the movie, it also seems laughable to me. Why are we looking at box office for this? For reasons stated in the article it’s very hard to read into. Let’s take a look at Netflix’s top 100 rentals:
1. The Blind Side
2. Crash
4. The Hurt Locker
5. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
6. The Departed
8. Inception
11. No Country For Old Men
12. Up in the Air
14. The Social Network
16. Slumdog Millionaire
18. Avatar
19. Inglourious Basterds
24. The King’s Speech
35. Little Miss Sunshine
41. Babel
46. Michael Clayton
62. True Grit
63. Juno
72. Black Swan
78. The Queen
88. Up
89. Million Dollar Baby
97. The Fighter
98. Atonement
100. The Aviator
Exactly 1/4 of every movie on the Netflix top 100 was a Best Picture nominee, and this isn’t even including movies that had decent support at the Oscars but no Best Pic nom like “Doubt.” I personally find it hard to believe that without the Oscars “The Hurt Locker” would be the fourth most popular rental from Netflix right now.
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Fuck The Artist.
Many people claim to hate the Oscars and say they are a joke, yet I bet those very same people cross their fingers year after year to see their favorite movie get noticed.
This is just ridiculous, he doesn’t know where he wants to go so he point out every kind of “argument” so he can make sense.
The worst is that he claims that the Academy lives in another world and don’t recognize the truly best films of the year, but if they did that the marjority would be foreign. So the precious audience, the american people that know so well about cinema would care less than they do about the Academy Awards. I think it’s time for the AMPAS to stop trying to please them and give some attention to the real movie lovers. This guy is so full of crap!
“Many in Hollywood would say that the financial reward of Oscars success makes the cost and loss of dignity worthwhile, but the facts indicate otherwise.”
He forgets to take home video into account. Take a look at the 100 most rented movies at Netflix and you’ll see Crash is #2, The Hurt Locker is #4, The Departed is #6, No Country for Old Men is #11, Slumdog Millionaire is #16, and The King’s Speech is #24, and various Oscar nominees litter the spots inbetween. And while I don’t have anything to back this up, I suspect an Oscar win doubles the asking price to sell T.V. rights to a movie.
BTW, the line “Can you really say that Borat didn’t deserve a nomination but Letters From Iwo Jima did?” more or less proves that this guy has no business writing anything about film.
Bottom line: he thinks the Best Picture nominees should be taken from the box-office top 10 list.
Matt’s right. I get the frustration with the awards and nominations not going your way, I’m still sore over Shame getting shut out, but if you understand that the Oscars aren’t the be all and end all you can get over it. It doesn’t make them irrelevant or even worthless. It just means that there are other measures of success too.
Watch the show, boo at the choices that you think shouldn’t be there and cheer for the few and far between favorites that made the cut. Just be glad the Oscars aren’t the People’s Choice Awards or the MTV Movie Awards.
Just another douche saying the Oscars are corrupted and a joke because they don’t choose what he thinks is the best.
“Voting for a tedious movie about racism and injustice like Crash instead of meaning-free crowd pleasers like Wedding Crashers, Batman Begins, or Mr. and Mrs. Smith”
This is so stupid that in a weird way is almost touching.
I find this article totally irrelevant. He argues so many points, I’m not sure which to address.
“I can’t see the value in saying one artistic endeavor is better than another.” Okay, clearly he doesn’t like subjective awards of any kind, but I think the people in the industry appreciate being recognized by their peers. They know it’s a game, but it’s like anything in life – people appreciate recognition for work well done.
He throws out tired examples of movies that, in his opinion, lost to inferior films. I’m not sure I would use The Hurt Locker if were I to make the argument. This same group picked No Country for Old Men. Shouldn’t they have with the period piece Atonement that wasn’t as edgy. They picked what they liked for whatever reason – they liked it the best, they wanted to recognize the Coens, they felt it represented the mood of the country. I disagree with the Oscars a lot myself, but it doesn’t make them wrong one year and right another year.
Not sure where he’s going with Borat – it did get a screenplay nomination. The Academy has a bias against comedies, but Borat was by no stretch a perfect film. I loved it, but I thought it wrapped-up poorly. I certainly wouldn’t give it a best picture nomination – I assume that’s what he’s referring to.
The money argument is also ridiculous. If the studios didn’t spend it on marketing the “Oscar movies,” they would not use that money to take more chances on quality entertainment. We’d just get more crap. Whether the studios are making good financial decisions in spending money to try and get an Oscar, that’s their business. But if you think they’d spend that money on “chancier” material, you’re just deluding yourself. If the studios really want Oscars, why don’t they put clauses in the contracts: “if you get a nomination, you’ll get such-and-such bonus.” That’s what sports teams team for players who win year-end awards. I won’t go into economics and whether it’s good or not for the money to be going into the economy.
He’s comparing box office to quality. The two have nothing in common. That assumes that the public at large is discerning, intelligent and capable of recognizing quality. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest – number 8 of all time in terms of domestic gross – that’s all that needs to be said about that.
That’s my rant for the afternoon.
The article is total horseshit. It’s not so much the Academy is out of touch. It’s that the American moviegoing public has become so dumbed-down since Star Wars they wouldn’t know an Oscar-caliber film if it bit them in the ass.Nor do they want to know.
I well remember the days when the Academy was under attack when they rewarded box office hits, such as My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and The Godfather. At least they were Oscar-worthy. Today’s box office hits are, by and large, infantile.
I’m tired, very tired, of people knocking the Academy Awards, as if it’s the sophisticated thing to do.
I dont see what they want though, to nominate harry potter, xmen first class, apes, warrior, dragon tattoo? Those are films for teenagers and would ruin the integrity of the awards.
Wow, preach it Gavin!
The Fassbender fans at my blog are still in pissed-off recovery mode. But we’ll be cool soon.