So, the nominees for the various awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have been released for 2013. As usual, it's a big groan.
Nothing new about that, though. Film buffs hardly need to be explained that the Oscar nominees shouldn't be confused with the best moves of the year. In fact, in truth, the actual best of the year are frequently obscure independent productions that are seen by a pretty small audience. That's just a fact of life. Such films won't be making the Academy's cut.
Remember though that many of such films are created by actors and technical staff that are working for free or well below union rates. And the Academy, if nothing else, is a union - and one that fiercely defends its privileges. So don't expect any "scabs" to be honored.
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 when I say politics, using the lower case, I'm thinking of the unwritten pecking order that guides Academy choices. First, really, no one should win an award too young/early - though occasionally exceptions are made in the acting category. As a general rule, though, no matter how good your performance was, you are expected to pay your dues. (Though, it is supposed to be "best performance," right? Not "best performance by someone who isn't an upstart.") Among us long time Oscar watchers most have their cynical moment when they threw in the towel; when the unwritten rules so undermined the integrity of the award that we ceased to be able to take the Oscars seriously ever again.
For me, that was in 1995 when they gave the best director award to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. After all, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! Pulp Fiction wasn't just the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. That was just laughable. But it happens all the time. A similar thing happened when Peter Jackson apparently couldn't be given the director's award for the first - as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings. No, he had to wait.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
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.
Nothing new about that, though. Film buffs hardly need to be explained that the Oscar nominees shouldn't be confused with the best moves of the year. In fact, in truth, the actual best of the year are frequently obscure independent productions that are seen by a pretty small audience. That's just a fact of life. Such films won't be making the Academy's cut.
Remember though that many of such films are created by actors and technical staff that are working for free or well below union rates. And the Academy, if nothing else, is a union - and one that fiercely defends its privileges. So don't expect any "scabs" to be honored.
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 when I say politics, using the lower case, I'm thinking of the unwritten pecking order that guides Academy choices. First, really, no one should win an award too young/early - though occasionally exceptions are made in the acting category. As a general rule, though, no matter how good your performance was, you are expected to pay your dues. (Though, it is supposed to be "best performance," right? Not "best performance by someone who isn't an upstart.") Among us long time Oscar watchers most have their cynical moment when they threw in the towel; when the unwritten rules so undermined the integrity of the award that we ceased to be able to take the Oscars seriously ever again.
For me, that was in 1995 when they gave the best director award to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. After all, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! Pulp Fiction wasn't just the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. That was just laughable. But it happens all the time. A similar thing happened when Peter Jackson apparently couldn't be given the director's award for the first - as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings. No, he had to wait.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
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 movie and TV commentary. If you're a fan of Mad Men, you can't miss his sensational piece 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