Hey, check it out; the nominees for the 2013 awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have hit your local newsstand. As usual, film aficionados everywhere are pulling out their hair.
But really, what's the big news? Anyone who follows this stuff is well aware of the necessity to not confuse the Oscar nominees with the actual best films of the year. The truth is that very often the real best movies of the year are those limited release, independent productions which hardly anybody ever sees. Those are disqualified more or less automatically.
It isn't though simply a matter of visibility. One needs to remember that the Academy is essentially a union and not a particularly modest one. (I know they've have you believe they are a public service - wouldn't most unions like you to think that about them?) And, the truth is, most of those independent films are created by actors and technical staff working well below union wages and even for free - and of not Academy members. Do you really think the Academy is going to honor the work of "scabs"?
However, even within that narrow range of films that do qualify for the Oscars, they almost always get it wrong. There are a number of reasons for this. The two main reasons might be identified as Politics and politics.
By Politics, with the upper case, I mean ideological commitments. Movies that make business men look corrupt, decry the evils of war, celebrate the causes of members of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to have an inside track.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
Plus, there's another side to these unwritten rules, that the elders must be honored, whether deserving or not. (Don't they have lifetime achievement awards for just this sort of thing?) You can make a dinner party game out of citing what one considers the most ridiculous injustice arising from this bit of intra-union politics. My vote goes to the passing over of Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another banal cookie-cutter performance in True Grit. But he was getting old you know...and had never won. (Yeah, maybe because he never deserved to win?)
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performance by Meryl Streep is deemed worthy of exception to this rule, I'm not sure: I suppose it's always important to have a token exception so they can't be accused of doing what they do.) Presumably something like such an attitude explains the exclusion of yet another gut wrenching performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Really, is there any longer any doubt that Hanks is the all time greatest film actor? It would be my vote. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming post on this topic.)
All of which leads me to conclude that when another year goes by and my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or whatever year) fails to be represented by the stately old Academy, I know I can rest easy. Somewhere the commitment to integrity and art in movies remains. And it sure ain't on Hollywood Boulevard.
But really, what's the big news? Anyone who follows this stuff is well aware of the necessity to not confuse the Oscar nominees with the actual best films of the year. The truth is that very often the real best movies of the year are those limited release, independent productions which hardly anybody ever sees. Those are disqualified more or less automatically.
It isn't though simply a matter of visibility. One needs to remember that the Academy is essentially a union and not a particularly modest one. (I know they've have you believe they are a public service - wouldn't most unions like you to think that about them?) And, the truth is, most of those independent films are created by actors and technical staff working well below union wages and even for free - and of not Academy members. Do you really think the Academy is going to honor the work of "scabs"?
However, even within that narrow range of films that do qualify for the Oscars, they almost always get it wrong. There are a number of reasons for this. The two main reasons might be identified as Politics and politics.
By Politics, with the upper case, I mean ideological commitments. Movies that make business men look corrupt, decry the evils of war, celebrate the causes of members of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to have an inside track.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
Plus, there's another side to these unwritten rules, that the elders must be honored, whether deserving or not. (Don't they have lifetime achievement awards for just this sort of thing?) You can make a dinner party game out of citing what one considers the most ridiculous injustice arising from this bit of intra-union politics. My vote goes to the passing over of Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another banal cookie-cutter performance in True Grit. But he was getting old you know...and had never won. (Yeah, maybe because he never deserved to win?)
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performance by Meryl Streep is deemed worthy of exception to this rule, I'm not sure: I suppose it's always important to have a token exception so they can't be accused of doing what they do.) Presumably something like such an attitude explains the exclusion of yet another gut wrenching performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Really, is there any longer any doubt that Hanks is the all time greatest film actor? It would be my vote. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming post on this topic.)
All of which leads me to conclude that when another year goes by and my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or whatever year) fails to be represented by the stately old Academy, I know I can rest easy. Somewhere the commitment to integrity and art in movies remains. And it sure ain't on Hollywood Boulevard.
About the Author:
Notice remains taken of Mickey Jhonny as one of the most original and bold voices in film and television commentary. If you're a fan of Mad Men, you can't miss his sensational blog post dissecting the secret of the show's success. His article criticizing the vilification of popular culture and celebrities by the anti-eating disorder crowd remains an online bombshell. Don't miss it!
No comments:
Post a Comment