In a bizarre, unanticipated
decision, the
Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that the number of Best Picture Oscar contenders would grow from
5 to 10. The Academy had previously nominated ten films (though once nominating twelve) until 1943, the year that
Casablanca won the category.
According to
The New York Times, the decision came after a lot of reflection over the 2008 awards, in which wildly successful movies such as
The Dark Knight or
Wall-E were snubbed (if you ask me, it's because they're "genre films"). Samuel "I don't give an" L. Jackson told the
LA Times that the Oscars don't truly reflect audience reception, seeming to argue that box-office success may be a better indicator of quality than critical acclaim. Under his interpretation of things, the biggest movie of the year may logically be the best movie of the year, making a previous winner like
Shakespeare in Love less worthy than its biggest competitor, the more successful
Saving Private Ryan, whose US revenue was nearly twice the worldwide revenue of the victor. That
ridiculous decision still makes me angry.
"Snakes on a Plane was mothafuckin' robbed!"
The logic of success determining quality is, in many ways, sound. However, such an approach can cheapen the artistic value of film, substituting earnings--an objective number--for quality--a subjective determination. To give an example:
Spider-Man 3 opened to incredible success at the box office, breaking records almost overnight. As a film, however, it was anything but incredible (in my humble opinion, it sucked
hard).
Defenders of the decision argue that it will allow for genre films like musical or animated films and independent films with low budgets to contend for the big prize. Quoted in the LA Times article linked above,
Jon Favreau instead argued that such a move will hurt the smaller films like
Slumdog Millionaire or
Crash, neither of which as successful as many of their competitors.
Of the decade? Really? That's the scoop. Now here's what
I think.
Let's be honest. The Academy has made a fair share of stupid decisions in its time (
snubbing Martin Scorsese for 25 years is a particularly unforgivable example, only recently remedied), and expanding the Best Picture category won't prevent any in the future.
The Dark Knight wasn't included in the top five for a predetermined reason, and its inclusion probably wouldn't have changed the final outcome of this year's awards.
Increasing the size of the Best Picture category does not change the quality of a year's films, nor any individual film's worthiness of the big award. To be extremely cynical, much of what this decision creates is an even-more hysterical frenzy of Oscar buzz, which leads to more ticket and DVD sales for a suffering industry. It may also cheapen the value of certain films that deserve to be in such a prestigious category, placing something like
Spider-Man 3 alongside
No Country for Old Men. Of course, the whole notion of a film's "value" or its "quality" is argued constructed arbitrarily, based on long-standing traditions and opinions, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
Is that Peter Parker or Conor Oberst?
It seems as though the Academy has bizarre notions of "art" and "quality" that are tied in with politics, sentimentality, and some resentment towards box office success. It is now overcompensating to correct those biases, reaching too far in the other direction and ignoring merits that can't necessarily be found in ticket sales or box office records.
What the Academy should do is something they should have
always done:
award the film that is most deserving. It seems like such a no-brainer, but the fact that
The Dark Knight wasn't even nominated speaks to an antiquated estimation of movies that denies the brilliance of certain films based on their content. It doesn't matter if the protagonist is wearing a cape: the best movie of the year is the best movie of the year, based on everything from the criteria of its craftsmanship to its effect on the viewer to the performances both before and behind the camera. The Academy needs to stop making pseudo-liberal, feel-good choices and start making the choices that reflect reality.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was a significantly better movie than
Chicago, and the fact that its sequel would most likely beat out any competition in the following year is no reason to have denied it the recognition it deserved. An actor like
Leonardo DiCaprio or the late
Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar for a fantastic performance, regardless of his age and the probability that another stunning performance is on its way.
If the Oscars are meant to reward cinematic greatness, then they should reward films that matter holistically, that will forever reflect the widespread opinion of the public that went to see them. There shouldn't be such a thing as an "Oscar upset," because we, as an audience, come to a consensus on the best films, performances, soundtracks, et cetera, every time we buy a ticket or write a review or tell a friend about a film. Call me a filthy Commie, but I think the Academy should reward excellent films and filmmakers, not the Oscar voters themselves for making bold, "political" choices.
That's my rant. What do you guys think?
"Snakes on a Plane was mothafuckin' robbed!"
Is that Peter Parker or Conor Oberst?
Comments (4)
this rant seems waay to complex for man couch! lol , jkjk
but really. just because a movie did well in the box office doesnt mean it's good. like seirously i agree spider man 3 sucked.
If tht got an oscar i would have cried
Spoken like a true movie critic. Making it 10 nominess...is good and bad. Good, because more movies can get votes...bad because more movies can go in (Best picture..and the nominees are...Imagine That). That makes me shudder at the thought.
I know where you are coming from though, some movies have been completly blown off for getting awards of any sort, which is sad with how well it did finicially, and how great the movie was (TDK noticably). Slumdog Millionaire was seriously a good movie, but it was huge on critic fanfair, and when that happens...theres no chance at all for other movies to win awards.
It's the awards of the smart movie man/woman. Still..last years set was beautiful =)
(I have to say it, I'm an architect)
If they really want to shake things up, I think they ought to get rid of the "Best Animated Feature" category. It's simply unfair that modern artistic masterpieces such as WALL-E, The Incredibles, and Ratatouille don't get a shot at Best Picture. WALL-E in particular was head and shoulders above most of the nominees last year.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that even if there had been 10 nominees last year, even including TDK, Slumdog still would have walked away with the Oscar. It's that kind of film.
However, the Oscars do have an odd track record of giving the Best Picture to something that was big at the time but inexplicable now, and overlooking eventual classics. E.T. lost to Gandhi; Apocalypse Now lost to Kramer vs. Kramer, The Ten Commandments lost to Around the World in 80 Days. That's a whole 'nother discussion though.
10 movies? That's kind of pushin' it!
Let me go on my mini-rant before I get started on the topic at hand: It seems like this change in Oscar sturcture was fueled by The Dark Knight's incredible box-office success and later "snub" for Best Picture (in my opinion, I didn't think it was). Yes, the Dark Knight was a good film, with an stunning visuals and an amazing performance by Heath. But in all hoonesty, the rest of the movie failed to deliver -- the acting was, in my opinion, pretty standard/ordinary (especially Christian Bale's... that voice? Horrible), the plot could have been stronger (especially in the logics and Harvey Dent's sub-plot), and the action could have been brought down a little (as to not distract from the film). In general, I just really think it's an overhyped summer action flick. But a good one. Is it Oscar-worthy? Eh, not really.
Now back to my point...
10 Oscar nominations for Best Picture definitely would benefit a lot of great films out there. But, on the other hand, it would open up a can of worms, allowing films (and actor/actress nominations) to be in the category when they really just hit a big number in the box office. Movie sales are, to some extent, a judge of film greatness, but most of the time, it's just the 18-30 crowd lookin' for a fun Friday night and a fun flick. That's why a lot of films are released in the summer -- to cater to this demographic. This is also why most movie theatres only release the "big" movies, namely the ones with the big names and the big advertising (i.e. The Dark Knight). So, what about the smaller, independent films? (i.e. Slumdog Millionaire). They'd get left in the dust. My point is, I just really think that 10 Oscar nominations would be waaay too much, and it'd end up having to open more spots to other categories... the show would be way too long, way too difficult. It great and all, adding more films that are "audience-friendly" to the list, but come on, we want cinematic greatness!
I don't want a run-of-the-mill movie. I want something visually stunning, well-acted, poignant, and meaningful. The Oscar Best Picture nomination finds those movies and awards them for being extraordinary. Having 5 more films added to the list would just make the honor seem less... prestigious. But maybe it's because I'm a bit of a film snob. I can't even handle seeing the High School Musical kids at the Oscars, but that's a whole 'nother story...