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.
And so it ever has been. Any thorough film buff of course knows perfectly well that these are not the awards for the best in the year's movies. Often the best films of the year are little independent productions that very few people see. These are disqualified pretty much 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 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.
And, sometimes, it seems, the Academy just doesn't want to nominate some people too often - maybe they're afraid of them getting too big for their britches. (Though Meryl Streep seems oddly exempt from this attitude.) I can only assume that something like this explains the exclusion of yet another brilliant, moving performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Is it time to finally say it: Tom Hanks is the greatest film actor of all time? Could be. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming piece 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.
And so it ever has been. Any thorough film buff of course knows perfectly well that these are not the awards for the best in the year's movies. Often the best films of the year are little independent productions that very few people see. These are disqualified pretty much 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 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.
And, sometimes, it seems, the Academy just doesn't want to nominate some people too often - maybe they're afraid of them getting too big for their britches. (Though Meryl Streep seems oddly exempt from this attitude.) I can only assume that something like this explains the exclusion of yet another brilliant, moving performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Is it time to finally say it: Tom Hanks is the greatest film actor of all time? Could be. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming piece 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:
Mickey Jhonny has been emerging as one of the freshest, most audacious 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 has been an online bombshell. Don't miss it!
0 comments:
Post a Comment