In a bizarre, unanticipated
decision yesterday, 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.
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 wholistically, 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?
Post a Comment