April 2021. Think about that for a minute. I mean, really think about it. We’re not even through Fall yet. Then we have to get through Winter and the most chaotic, dramatic, high stakes election in most of our lifetimes, and finally Spring will arrive and with it, whatever remains of the Oscar race.
Even though Oscar Night is way away in April, the fear and panic over Covid sees no signs of slowing down. At least this is true on the left as we barrel towards an historic election. All things are political and all things are partisan even and especially the Oscars. That is why Washington Post opinionater Alyssa Rosenberg offered up an overreaction that — despite the Emmys finding a way to cope — we should “cancel” the Oscars.
I can see where she’s coming from. But I’d like to argue that rather than cancel the Oscars, we should all rethink how we engage with them. Not only those of us who cover them, and our thousands of friends who follow them avidly, but let’s consider the entire industry that has risen up around the concept and the passion of Oscarwatching, of which I will take part ownership, having started way back in 2000.
This is Reality, Greg
Right now, as of this moment, there is no Oscar race. There is an imprint of where the Oscar race should be. As there is every year in October, there are already performances that are good enough to be placed in the Oscar race. We could kind of, sort of compile a list that would look not all that different from lists in previous years because of the durable pipeline that’s been built between publicity and Oscar coverage. Some of us have been doing this so long we’ve worn a groove. But there is just one problem. The bottom has dropped out. The light at the end of the gauntlet is dim.
I know what you’re thinking. It’s just temporary. Everything will be fine. It will all be fine. At some point things will kick back into gear and people will start watching movies again and maybe even venture into a theater or two. Unfortunately, though, too many people on the left aren’t yet ready to frequent movie theaters. And since so many on the right have turned their back on Hollywood, movies must increasingly rely ticket buyers on the left. Imagine if more movies were made for people on the right (more Left Behind movies! More Rambos cum American Snipers!) Then we’d have no problem filling seats. But we don’t live in that kind of world, Thelma.
The world we live in is one where people were comfortable with its insular nature, because there wasn’t a problem. Hollywood could make movies for audiences while the smaller studios could make movies for Oscar voters. Custom made meals created for specific tastes — as one would a separate section of an airplane. Of course, the general public is always welcome and invited into the world if they so choose. But who are we kidding. They very rarely so choose. Too many right-wing leaders have told them that Hollywood is their enemy, and too many right-wing followers believe it.
But now the virus has slammed every door shut on everyone. For the foreseeable future, it’s flattened whatever was left of our Oscar race. At the same time, the rules on the Oscars and on art have never been more strident. Hollywood largely creates and complies with these rules out of fear. Fear of a loss of revenue. Fear of public humiliation. Fear of the mob. But how do you police an Oscar race in a year that is barely there to begin with?
On the one hand, this would be a great time to start everything over from scratch. On the other hand, perhaps we can kick the can down the road to see just how strident and utopian this race can become. Will the filmmakers find acceptable ways to meet all of the diversity requirements so that Twitter will give them a break when the entire industry is struggling for what’s left of its life?
I don’t know the answer, my friends. But as usual I can’t lie to you, dear readers. I can’t pretend that there is an Oscar race where there is none. There isn’t an Oscar race this year because there isn’t a broad enough audience — even an arthouse theater audience — not enough to view and evaluate enough films. A healthy film industry doesn’t make movies aimed at critics or even for industry voters. This isn’t haute couture Fashion Week. It isn’t supposed to be. These aren’t supposed to be exclusive events for tastemakers, though we can’t deny that is exactly what it has become. No, the Oscars are supposed to be an event that bridges the gap between the industry and the public for whom movies are ostensibly made.
The reason the Oscars used to be held so late, in March or April, was because movies were released to the public and public reception was an important factor in assessing a movie’s value. The public had the final say. Movies that had high Oscar hopes were still supposed to be made not for critics, not for the industry, not for bloggers, not for Twitter — but for audiences. Who would faithfully show up, slap down their hard earned cash, grab a bucket of popcorn and enjoy the ride.
Back then, the end of December, with the premieres of holiday fare, meant the end of the entire year in film. In January and February, the ticket sales either grew or else faltered. The Academy would then decide which five films stood out. Which performances were the best. The public was in on it because their vote also counted. It counted with box office. When I first started covering the Oscars that is how it went down. We waited. We waited and waited and waited. So much so that if you go to the Wayback Machine and you look at Oscarwatch from 2002 (they changed the date in 2003, pushing everything up a month to February, and inadvertently selecting the audience out).
In those days, in November, Oscarwatch (now AwardsDaily) only jotted down films that seemed to be likely Oscar contenders – we did not predict them. This is what that looked like the year Chicago eventually won Best Picture.
And here are Kris Tapley’s very early predictions from that same year in October:
Then by late November this is what that looked like:
Note David Poland’s three sure bets for Best Picture. None of them made it in. Unfortunately I have no December flashbacks but here is what it finally looks like in January.
By late January, we had nailed down all five Best Picture contenders except for The Pianist.
That is how unpredictable it was. Back then, we were FOLLOWING the race, not leading it. The Academy, not us, not the critics, did the deciding and they did it by keeping tabs on audiences. The Two Towers got in because it made a lot of money and was popular. The Pianist got in because it was critically acclaimed. Chicago won because it was liked by both audiences and voters. You might dismiss this but this was one of the last remaining years when you could walk into a bar and tell someone what won Best Picture and they would know what movie you were talking about. Because movies and the Oscars that awarded them were a communal experience back then.
Now, the players in the Oscar race ar virtually pre-ordained by OCTOBER. The presumptions are then confirmed by November, with very little wiggle room. By December you are talking one or two slots that might end up in a surprise. All before most moviegoers ever get a glimpse of the contenders. That is way too much control in the hands of people like me and not enough of a open field for filmmakers to thrive and for audiences to participate.
The Oscars should not be cancelled
But perhaps this year, the Oscar machine can be reminded of our proper place in the process. Our place is not to make the race, invent the race, or fulfill the wishes of publicists. Our place is to watch, track, predict and analyze the race — and what that will require is for us to step back from micromanaging trajectories and outcomes, and allow once again for a healthy relationship between studio offerings and audience acceptance. Rather than approach the race by winnowing all movies down to “Oscar movies,” maybe now we can macro out and think about destroying the dam that traps films into a reservoir.
If movie theaters do not open up in time for there to be a pipeline from studios to audiences, then it will become important to expand audience participation via streaming platforms. That isn’t going to be easy because instant reaction to streamed movies will depend on Twitter, and Twitter is not only completely insane, it’s INSANELY insane. Constraints on what’s deemed acceptable is always a mess, and the mess is magnified when viewed through the distorted prism of Twitter, since so many of the loudest voices are all about policing art, looking for any problematic aspects that someone can turn into a clout tweet.
Once a film is raked over the coals how does it make any sort of impact in a race that involves no actual physical audiences that can often override the insanity of Twitter? To tell you the truth, I do not know. But I do know that if it were me, I would rethink the whole thing. It would be the Oscar race but the Oscar race in the era of Covid.
How can that benefit the industry? How can it benefit audiences? Well, by standing up for art. By turning this stressful era into an opportunity to remember what it means for a movie to be great — as opposed to movies that serve a specific effort to heal a wounded society. Can we in our industry, and film critics, use this moment as an opportunity to bring more people into the world of great movies? To revive what defines a great movie? To reexamine what we mean when we say it’s great?
I know, I know. We can’t get out of this trap that easily. We’re going to need a lot of lessons and we’re going to get a lot of lessons. But if the Oscar race is still on, I am going to do my best to give you, dear readers, to dive as deep as I can go. We’ll be doing our darndest to explore what defines great cinema — running up and down the boulevards screaming about great directing, great acting, great writing — and at the same time, we’ll make every effort to put these films and these filmmakers in the context of cinema traditions and that arc of Oscar history.
No doubt the old game will someday return. But let’s not move through this time of turmoil without remembering what art is for. What films are for. Why they are made at all. There may be too many people covering the Oscars. There are certainly too many people trying to micromanage them. There are too many restrictions on artists. What we need is to tear it all down, toss what’s unnecessary, keep what’s essential, and rebuild the whole shebang back better. But we’ll never be able to do that unless we can first face the hard truth.
things wont get any better in the next 6 months. Europe is having worst covid scenarios now then during April – May, and the USA has never been worse. Oscars 2021 make no sense, when eveything except streaming (well almost everything) is being postponed to mid or late 2021.
a virtual ceremony for what?. Da 5 Bloods? The Invisible Man? please.
A combined race for 2020-2021 would be dope, though.
It’s mid-October and we already have some clearly Oscar-calibre films around, not that many, but there are: The Trial of the Chicago 7, Nomadland, Da 5 Bloods and arguably Mank will join. Tenet is the kind of blockbuster that gets in, now and then. The Invisible Man, same (it was really good). Soul will join also the pack. Add to this, independent and foreign language offerings… I think there will be enough films to justify a competition, in the end… it will only be a matter of… do they want to do a telecast and ceremony like the Emmies? I doubt it. That is why I am fearing that they’ll wait for 2022 to do a combined race between 2020 and 21…
Isn’t most of the Academy’s yearly revenue from the ceremony? So I don’t think it’s about whether they feel like having an online ceremony
I appreciate your comments Sasha, but with all due respect, you cannot have it both ways. I have read and admired your work for nearly 15 years, but when I have contacted you to ask that you cover more LGBTQ+ films, because they are among the first to fall off Best Picture lists (convenient, that), nothing comes of it. I even offered to interview someone from Boy Erased for your site, crickets from Ryan.
This year, I see Ammonite getting similar treatment, with mostly cis-gender writers, eager to get the film off their virtual desk, essentially trying to pan the film, thereby killing any chances it would have had to make room for the Manks of the world. These same people, by the way, deleted my criticism of their review the minute I posted it and did not respond to my inquiry of why (Indiewire). But the saddest thing about Ammonite is that these writers have somewhere along the lines gotten the LGBTQ+ community (e.g., Awardswatch) to go along with it and not a day goes by that someone doesn’t mention how Ammonite is “out of the race”.
Also this year, no mention of Jim Parsons in the Best Actor Race for Boys in the Band, when he clearly deserves to be in the discussion. Oh, and everyone is waiting with knives drawn for The Prom. So the game of kill the LGBTQ+ film continues…
Finally, the review from this site of French Exit sounds as though it were written to prop up Michelle Pfeiffer’s Best Actress chances — it doesn’t event mention the films supporting player Valerie Mahaffey who steals every scene and not only overshadows Danielle McDonald and Imogen Poots (who ARE mentioned in the review), but Pfeiffer herself. Yet, Jim Parsons gets ignored completely — give me a break.
It is for these reasons that I have started my own site that emphasizes such films, along with those in the thriller/horror genre, which have been met with the same fate, e.g., Gone Girl.
Hopefully, some day all of this will change, your site, my site, hopefully there are more sites like mine, and we can meet in the middle. But until then, I hope you can appreciate where my criticism comes from and perhaps learn from it, in some small way.
Of course the actual problem is that no film or person that you have mentioned seem to merit any actual awards consideration.
Saying that and offering no examples is akin to saying nothing. Next time, say nothing.
Yeah, you don’t really get to silence me or anyone. Bullying seems to be your MO. The examples are literally every title or person you mentioned in your post. Which is exactly what I said. Therefore, yes, I offered examples to you. I hope you can appreciate where my criticism comes from and perhaps learn from it, in some small way. (Not so cute any longer, is it?)
Bullying is my MO? LOL. Once again, you offer no proof. It’s easy to cast dispersions when you hide behind an avatar. Let’s stick to the facts: you did not give a single example–instead, you painted a vague picture of “films you mentioned”. I mentioned many films, none of which you cited, rendering your response completely inept. Like I said, ignoring you going forward.
I wouldn’t attempt to “say nothing” as you have already turned that into an (exhausting and pointless) art form.
This sentence makes absolutely zero sense. (Ignoring you from now on). 😉
I don’t watch films about gay people. PERIOD. I fast forward through Schmitt’s Creek whenever the gay guys “comingle.” I may be the majority. Not any “gay themed” movie that I know of has ever done well at the boxo or awards — except Moonlight, if you consider that a gay-themed movie, which I don’t.
Anywho, I’ve had my say.
I just don’t find gay relationships on film, “interesting.”
Boys In The Band was terrible. Beyond terrible. Jim overacted the crap out of that role. Looking forward to French Exit though
Jim Parson has one disposition: Big Bang
(Just a theory)
Totally disagree, but you’re entitled to your opinion. FE is a mess.
Quite flimsy writing. Lacking a lot of assertiveness. ” this could happen, or maybe this could happen.” all to say “we don’t know.”
I can understand the sentiment: the films I was most looking forward to were moved to next year, and yet the remaining films are worthy of praise nonetheless. I remember thinking after last year’s ceremony: “wow next season is gonna be so packed!” so maybe it’s a good thing that all these contenders are dividing themselves over two seasons, more room for them to shine and more time for us to see them. Plus, we need the Oscars now more than ever before to cheer us up amidst all the drama.
First, comments on the Washington Post opinion piece: so the arguments here seem to be:
1) Not enough movies
2) People might not have access to the movies
3) No glamour, no dresses, no “star-studded event”
4) The movies can’t “appear to be small” in the face of audiences because of the situation the industry is in and having a gala via Zoom would do that
My counterpoints:
1) There are always enough movies. People cry about how bad this year has been, that only Tenet and Da 5 Bloods and The Invisible Man have come out and people seem to find problems with each of those movies (I personally have considerable problems with Tenet). Instead I argue, what if we’d just ignore those movies? Big studio movies aren’t going to save us so let’s instead zoom in, look at films that might generally slip past the Oscar voters just because there might be shinier, louder films running around: we have First Cow, we have Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always, we have Bacurau, we have Premature, we have I’m Thinking of Ending Things, we have Nomadland, we have She Dies Tomorrow, we have On the Rocks. And if you want to go a little more adventurous, there are incredible movies like About Endlessness, Bait, Days, Ghost Town Anthology, Just Don’t Think I’ll Scream, Labyrinth of Cinema, Martin Eden, Sibyl, Vitalina Varela and The Woman Who Ran just waiting to be released. And this is just from the very limited amount of movies I’ve seen, there must be so much more.
2) Isn’t the story of modern moviegoing (before the pandemic) that people aren’t going, instead they stay home and watch TV and streaming. So while coverage isn’t 100%, this will probably for a section of the audience encourage them to watch the movies. And the idea here (and also in what Sasha has written) seems to be that the Oscars are the closing point, that the Oscars must reflect an opinion, rather than be a part in changing it. I have always disagreed with this. If the Oscars are merely a statement of “Well, here are the best movies. Hopefully you agreed with what we picked”, they are merely something where Hollywood throws prizes at itself. Instead in my opinion the Oscars are and always have been (except for its founding, which from what I’ve understood was based on studio heads trying to fight unions) ad space, not only for Hollywood but for the movies that they make. The relevance is after the Oscars when people go: “I want to see that movie that won best picture” or “they showcased the nominees and this seemed interesting”. And when this happens, even in this year, people will figure out how they can see those movies. The technology to get to the movies isn’t more complicated and seeing the movies will probably cost less than movie tickets. So what is the issue?
3) Who cares? People see stars on social media every day, that point of the ceremony has become less and less meaningful over the years
4) What if instead having the Oscars and praising the movie theatre experience in the ceremony is a form of saying: “We don’t give up on cinema” and as an ad event it will showcase movies that can be released in theatres after the pandemic, driving in that part of the audience that wants to see the Oscar movies but can’t get to them, and thus pushing money to theatres. That’s perhaps a little optimistic but what is the alternative? That we decide that the industry is symbolically closed until further notice, lament that movie theatres are dying without actually doing anything that might help them reopen once it’s reasonable to do so and see if once we decide it’s safe whether there’s anything to reopen?
About what Sasha has written: so your plan is to emphasize the role of the audience? If the theatres reopen to the level that studios will present movies that they also want to be a part of the Oscars in theatres, things will have gone pretty much back to normal, and I’d imagine any interest in looking at the race “differently” will disappear. Now of course that is extremely unlikely, and instead we are probably at the hands of the streamers and VOD à la carte purchase outlets. And unlike with a theatrical box office, there is usually little clarity as to what is popular, and how popular is that which is popular. Numbers of the amount of people who’ve watched something is usually not released, and even if we were to find out these numbers, we don’t know for example how many people watched the full movie, how many people watched it together and what level of success do these numbers mean relatively to the previous several years of these services presenting movies. The expertise to understand what is popular is only within these companies, meaning that there is no real way for us to assess independently whether something was successful on a mass level. And unlike theatres, these films will play on these platforms for months, meaning that “popular” would have to be redefined at all times because a movie might suddenly see a surge of popularity. The only real way we can assess popularity this year is on an individual level, which leads us to Twitter and other social media, which you seem to be against as forms of expressing thought on movies, due to its hive-like nature. So these definitions will be incredibly difficult to actually figure out.
Also, while I find the phrasing of it as standing up to the “insanity of Twitter” a little odd and abrasive, I wholly welcome a continuous discussion about the movies and their quality throughout the race, often that feels like only the first stepping stone in the Oscar discussion, followed by months of discussion about the narratives and directions of the race as if the race is something separate from the movies themselves.
Question: I notice that the movie houses open in my city, Chicago, the times for movies are starting really late. 3:00 pm, 7:00 pm, even on the weekends. Why are they starting late? What happened to the 11:00, 12noon start times?
I’d imagine they think that people are at work so they want to play only screenings where they think people will show up
Not so. Practically no one is working in the downtown towers in Chicago. The city is a ghost town in the day hours. A lot of unemployment.
I thought maybe the movie houses were sanitizing the rooms? I dunno….it just seems that early hours would be more attractive.
I don’t think it’s necessarily that. At least here in Finland where theatres have been open again for 4 months now (although they might close again soon), the important time seems to be the time in between screenings, during which they can sanitize the entire room, so it would make sense to have screenings start early in order to have as much time to clean up in between screenings.
Maybe they want to keep the 7:00 pm screenings but they can’t afford to have that many people working so they limit the amount of time they’re open so that one shift can handle the entire day?
Yeah I would imagine the audience for theatres has gone down so much during the pandemic that they are only running sessions at the busiest times when they can actually afford to pay staff because otherwise they would be losing money even more badly than they probably already are.
Nice honest and self-critical column. We can apply this example to the whole pundit box seat.
I really miss the times when the audience built the Oscar’s race foundations, not a bunch of critics trying to mimic the Academy beforehand. Audience makes part of the industry, critics shouldn’t
I have seen one movie and it was online. I get movie alerts all the time into my email to watch online, but honestly, none of them excite me enough to pay…..and now that movie theaters are open, the ones available don’t excite me enough to go to the theater. If every movie being made continues to be on streaming service, that’s not very reassuring.
Did Poland really write “Denzel needs to do the shucking and jiving” ???