With movie award season in full swing, it’s time for everyone--from Entertainment Weekly to that one guy who thinks he knows movies even though he’s only seen Gladiator and Forrest Gump--to speculate about who’s going to take home the most notable cinematic award one could win...the Oscar. With the Academy Awards entering its 87th year, there have been a seemingly endless amount of movies, directors, actresses and actors that have been nominated over the years. Even with the amount of awards given out, this year, as with every year, there will be an even larger amount of movies and performances that will go unrecognized by the Academy. Now, this does not mean that they are bad by any means, which brings me to my main point: Do we really need the Oscars?
Oscar nominations have been out for over a month now, and quite frankly, it’s a pretty unsurprising list when looking at the Best Picture nominees. There’s the “disability biopic” (Theory of Everything), the “homosexual period piece biopic” (The Imitation Game), the “jingoist propaganda piece” (American Sniper) and the “sentimental coming of age” film (Boyhood). I’ve seen all but one of the nominated pictures (the one being Theory of Everything) and while most of them are really good, there’s a lack of really exceptional films. For every unworthy movie nominated (I’m specifically looking at you American Sniper), I can think of a film that is much more deserving of a place on that much sought after category. For instance, take out The Imitation Game (which was very good, but not Oscar worthy) and replace it with Gone Girl or replace American Sniper with a war movie that’s actually good like Fury. There’s just nothing pleasantly surprising about this year’s list. I mean, I’m more than happy that Whiplash and Grand Budapest Hotel made it, but that was expected, wasn’t it? As for the Best Actor and Actress categories, there are definitely some surprises (both good and bad) worth mentioning. The omission of Jake Gyllenhaal for his mind-blowing performance in Nightcrawler has shocked many people. I’m honestly surprised that there wasn’t a posthumous nomination for Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance in A Most Wanted Man, which honestly did deserve the Academy’s recognition regardless of his mortal standing. As for the Best Actress category, I won’t talk much about it, since I’ve only one of the five nominated performances; the one being Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, which totally deserves the nomination. No spoilers or anything, but all I’ll say is she’s incredible!
This year, there are eight films up for Best Picture. It’s a pretty substantial amount of movies to be in one category, but it’s by no means the most. Starting in 2010, we’ve seen an exponential and almost ludicrous increase in Best Picture nominations. (An interesting aside here: there were over 80 films considered for Best Foreign Picture for the 2015 Oscars. And Force Majuere didn’t end up in the final list?! That’s crazy, man.) In 2009, there were only five films chosen for this category. This had been the norm for quite some time. However since 2010, there have been between nine and ten(!) pictures picked for this category. There haven’t been this many films nominated since 1943. I believe that needs reiterating. 1943!!! Now, it could that there’s more quality in film today than in the 66 years prior to the “Post Five” years, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. This is just a theory, but there may be more nominations than before because of a growing awareness in the industry of what the Academy looks for in an Oscar winning/nominated picture. If this is the case, then filmmakers are sacrificing their own artistic individuality for a gold statue (it’s not even gold. In fact, it’s 92% tin.). Every year, we see films that are so desperate for Oscar buzz, like The Butler, that try so hard to cram sentimentality and inspiration down our throats, like a horrifying Frankenstein’s monster of Spielberg and Capra. Thankfully, movies like this don’t always win, but they are trying to work and abuse the system while unique and truly exceptional works get left behind.
Which brings me to my second topic: snubs and movies that deserve to win but don’t. The history of the Oscars is rife with movies that didn’t receive awards and nominations when they deserved them more than any other film. The amount of examples is pretty sad, actually: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof losing to Gigi (1959) (that makes me sick just thinking about it), Dr. Strangelove losing to My Fair Lady (1964), Rocky winning over Taxi Driver (1977) or even There Will Be Blood losing to No Country for Old Men (2007). In recent years, movies that haven’t received the recognition they ought to have included Drive, The Master (for Best Picture) and the most shameful snub, Inside Llewyn Davis. I won’t spend too much time on this movie, but I’ll just say that if Gravity, one of the most overrated films in recent memory, can get nominated for Best Picture, then surely Llewyn Davis could’ve at least received a nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Oscar Isaac), Actress in a Supporting Role (Carey Mulligan), Best Original Screenplay, Director or Best Picture. For being one, if not the best, film of 2013, it’s quite shocking that it got virtually no recognition from the Academy.
This year too has seen more disgraceful snubbery (just accept it as a word). Movies like Blue Ruin will not see the light of an Oscar nomination, although it’s by far one of the finest films of 2014. Other critically successful films like Snowpiercer and A Most Wanted Man have been snubbed as well. However, even though they won’t win any Oscars, audiences and critics will still know how incredible these movies are. Which brings me to my main anti-Oscar argument. If the “best” films are the ones not winning the awards, what’s the point of presenting an award to a movie that doesn’t warrant it? Most people wouldn’t say that My Fair Lady is better than Dr. Strangelove or How Green Was My Valley is a better film than Citizen Kane, yet they have been determined as “superior” by the Academy because they’ve won an Oscar.
When it comes to actors, an Academy Award can add to the prestige of a prosperous career. In the case of unknowns who garner an award, an Oscar can either make or break a career in an instant. Let’s take Jean Dujardin, pour example. When he won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role in 2012 for The Artist, it was thought by many that this would begin a phase of unparalleled popularity for him. However, not only has he not skyrocketed to tremendous success, but he’s trapped in a strange purgatory between A-list celebrity and obscurity. Sure, some people know his name (sometimes you’ll just have to say “that guy from The Artist” to remind people who you’re talking about), but he isn’t getting anywhere near the amount of roles people expected him to have after his sudden critical success and acclaim.
In an article in Forbes Magazine entitled “What Does Winning An Oscar Do For An Actor’s Salaries?” the concept of the “Oscar jinx” is presented; the idea that “after winning an Academy Award, an actor may face even bigger professional challenges.” Some examples include: Melissa Leo, Cuba Gooding Jr., Adrien Brody, Halle Berry and, of course, Jean Dujardin. Now this isn’t applicable to every actor and actress, but the “jinx” has affected enough people that an Oscar win could actually be seen as a detriment.
More and more actors have spoken out against the Oscars in recent years. And by “more and more,” I mean two actors in the last two years, but stick with me because it helps prove my point. In 2012, Joaquin Phoenix (nominated that year for The Master) gave his opinion on the Oscars in an interview with Elvis Mitchell. Besides saying that the awards are “bullshit,” he offered some interesting insight into the awards buzz and the process as a whole. “It’s totally subjective. Pitting people against each other…It’s the stupidest thing in the whole world.” Joaquin’s probably relieved that he doesn’t have to deal with the Oscars this year, since his performance in Inherent Vice wasn’t recognized by the Academy.
Speaking of infections, Bill Murray, too, has spoken out in opposition of “Oscar fever.” In an October interview with Variety, the star of St. Vincent described the Oscar buzz surrounding his and other films as “an illness.” The interview, while not referring to the “Oscar jinx” directly, did cover a similar mentality. Quoth the Murray, “people have this post-Oscar blowback. They start thinking, ‘I can’t do a movie unless it’s Oscar-worthy.’ It just seems people have difficulty making the right choice after that.” While magazines, websites and other publications have been touting the quality of his performance, an Oscar is the last thing Murray wants. When he was nominated in 2004 for Lost in Translation, talk of nominations, awards and the endless speculations left a bad taste with both he and Joaquin Phoenix (during the Walk the Line hype). If these awards serve as a detriment to growing or established careers, what is the point in winning one?
To add even more on the topic of actors, there’s the idea of what I like to call “pity Oscars,” when the Academy gives an award/nomination to an actor who’s had an incredible career but hasn’t won an Oscar for any of their great performances. The best example of this is Jeff Bridges. For the record, I don’t dislike Bridges by any means. In fact, I’m a staunch supporter of the Church of Dudeism. Anyway, he had been nominated four times prior, starting in 1972 with The Last Picture Show. With his performance in Crazy Heart, the Academy and audiences rediscovered how great of an actor he was and because of this he was nominated. When he took home the Oscar, it wasn’t really an award highlighting his performance in Crazy Heart, but for all of the movies that had come before that. I’m not saying he wasn’t great in the film, but it definitely wasn’t Oscar-worthy or the best performance of the year. While he didn’t win, the same can be said for Gary Oldman, who was nominated in 2012 for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. For decades, Oldman has been a nuanced talent who hadn’t received the credit he undoubtedly deserved. Giving him a nomination was the Academy’s way of showing him they acknowledged him. And he was pretty good in Tinker Tailor, but an Oscar nomination, seriously? And we all knew he wasn’t going to win, but the Academy nominated him so they could feel good about themselves and so that Oldman could now be an “Oscar nominated” actor instead of just “Gary Oldman.” But frankly, it wouldn’t make any difference if he were never nominated. It doesn’t change how talented he is or was before. After all, it’s just a title and there have been plenty of actors and actresses who are seen as legends who have never seen an Oscar nomination or win in their lifetime: Peter Lorre, Steve Buscemi, Mia Farrow, Donald Sutherland, Edward G. Robinson, Marilyn Monroe, John Turturro, John Goodman, Martin Sheen, the list goes on.
Does an award really justify a film’s or actor/actress’s merit? I don’t believe so. More often than not, it’s movies and actors who don’t win that have delivered superior cinematic experiences and performances. By saying that, I don’t mean that every film is a great one, just that often, the truly special performances and pictures are left by the wayside.
So, do we really need the Oscars? I don’t think we do. That being said, I know for certain I’ll be watching, as I do every year and having a darn good time (unless Neil Patrick Harris blows it).
_____________________________________________________________
Now let's get really depressed watching Philip Seymour Hoffman's 2006 acceptance speech.
Oscar nominations have been out for over a month now, and quite frankly, it’s a pretty unsurprising list when looking at the Best Picture nominees. There’s the “disability biopic” (Theory of Everything), the “homosexual period piece biopic” (The Imitation Game), the “jingoist propaganda piece” (American Sniper) and the “sentimental coming of age” film (Boyhood). I’ve seen all but one of the nominated pictures (the one being Theory of Everything) and while most of them are really good, there’s a lack of really exceptional films. For every unworthy movie nominated (I’m specifically looking at you American Sniper), I can think of a film that is much more deserving of a place on that much sought after category. For instance, take out The Imitation Game (which was very good, but not Oscar worthy) and replace it with Gone Girl or replace American Sniper with a war movie that’s actually good like Fury. There’s just nothing pleasantly surprising about this year’s list. I mean, I’m more than happy that Whiplash and Grand Budapest Hotel made it, but that was expected, wasn’t it? As for the Best Actor and Actress categories, there are definitely some surprises (both good and bad) worth mentioning. The omission of Jake Gyllenhaal for his mind-blowing performance in Nightcrawler has shocked many people. I’m honestly surprised that there wasn’t a posthumous nomination for Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance in A Most Wanted Man, which honestly did deserve the Academy’s recognition regardless of his mortal standing. As for the Best Actress category, I won’t talk much about it, since I’ve only one of the five nominated performances; the one being Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl, which totally deserves the nomination. No spoilers or anything, but all I’ll say is she’s incredible!
This year, there are eight films up for Best Picture. It’s a pretty substantial amount of movies to be in one category, but it’s by no means the most. Starting in 2010, we’ve seen an exponential and almost ludicrous increase in Best Picture nominations. (An interesting aside here: there were over 80 films considered for Best Foreign Picture for the 2015 Oscars. And Force Majuere didn’t end up in the final list?! That’s crazy, man.) In 2009, there were only five films chosen for this category. This had been the norm for quite some time. However since 2010, there have been between nine and ten(!) pictures picked for this category. There haven’t been this many films nominated since 1943. I believe that needs reiterating. 1943!!! Now, it could that there’s more quality in film today than in the 66 years prior to the “Post Five” years, but I don’t think that’s the case at all. This is just a theory, but there may be more nominations than before because of a growing awareness in the industry of what the Academy looks for in an Oscar winning/nominated picture. If this is the case, then filmmakers are sacrificing their own artistic individuality for a gold statue (it’s not even gold. In fact, it’s 92% tin.). Every year, we see films that are so desperate for Oscar buzz, like The Butler, that try so hard to cram sentimentality and inspiration down our throats, like a horrifying Frankenstein’s monster of Spielberg and Capra. Thankfully, movies like this don’t always win, but they are trying to work and abuse the system while unique and truly exceptional works get left behind.
Which brings me to my second topic: snubs and movies that deserve to win but don’t. The history of the Oscars is rife with movies that didn’t receive awards and nominations when they deserved them more than any other film. The amount of examples is pretty sad, actually: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof losing to Gigi (1959) (that makes me sick just thinking about it), Dr. Strangelove losing to My Fair Lady (1964), Rocky winning over Taxi Driver (1977) or even There Will Be Blood losing to No Country for Old Men (2007). In recent years, movies that haven’t received the recognition they ought to have included Drive, The Master (for Best Picture) and the most shameful snub, Inside Llewyn Davis. I won’t spend too much time on this movie, but I’ll just say that if Gravity, one of the most overrated films in recent memory, can get nominated for Best Picture, then surely Llewyn Davis could’ve at least received a nomination for Best Actor in a Leading Role (Oscar Isaac), Actress in a Supporting Role (Carey Mulligan), Best Original Screenplay, Director or Best Picture. For being one, if not the best, film of 2013, it’s quite shocking that it got virtually no recognition from the Academy.
This year too has seen more disgraceful snubbery (just accept it as a word). Movies like Blue Ruin will not see the light of an Oscar nomination, although it’s by far one of the finest films of 2014. Other critically successful films like Snowpiercer and A Most Wanted Man have been snubbed as well. However, even though they won’t win any Oscars, audiences and critics will still know how incredible these movies are. Which brings me to my main anti-Oscar argument. If the “best” films are the ones not winning the awards, what’s the point of presenting an award to a movie that doesn’t warrant it? Most people wouldn’t say that My Fair Lady is better than Dr. Strangelove or How Green Was My Valley is a better film than Citizen Kane, yet they have been determined as “superior” by the Academy because they’ve won an Oscar.
When it comes to actors, an Academy Award can add to the prestige of a prosperous career. In the case of unknowns who garner an award, an Oscar can either make or break a career in an instant. Let’s take Jean Dujardin, pour example. When he won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role in 2012 for The Artist, it was thought by many that this would begin a phase of unparalleled popularity for him. However, not only has he not skyrocketed to tremendous success, but he’s trapped in a strange purgatory between A-list celebrity and obscurity. Sure, some people know his name (sometimes you’ll just have to say “that guy from The Artist” to remind people who you’re talking about), but he isn’t getting anywhere near the amount of roles people expected him to have after his sudden critical success and acclaim.
In an article in Forbes Magazine entitled “What Does Winning An Oscar Do For An Actor’s Salaries?” the concept of the “Oscar jinx” is presented; the idea that “after winning an Academy Award, an actor may face even bigger professional challenges.” Some examples include: Melissa Leo, Cuba Gooding Jr., Adrien Brody, Halle Berry and, of course, Jean Dujardin. Now this isn’t applicable to every actor and actress, but the “jinx” has affected enough people that an Oscar win could actually be seen as a detriment.
More and more actors have spoken out against the Oscars in recent years. And by “more and more,” I mean two actors in the last two years, but stick with me because it helps prove my point. In 2012, Joaquin Phoenix (nominated that year for The Master) gave his opinion on the Oscars in an interview with Elvis Mitchell. Besides saying that the awards are “bullshit,” he offered some interesting insight into the awards buzz and the process as a whole. “It’s totally subjective. Pitting people against each other…It’s the stupidest thing in the whole world.” Joaquin’s probably relieved that he doesn’t have to deal with the Oscars this year, since his performance in Inherent Vice wasn’t recognized by the Academy.
Speaking of infections, Bill Murray, too, has spoken out in opposition of “Oscar fever.” In an October interview with Variety, the star of St. Vincent described the Oscar buzz surrounding his and other films as “an illness.” The interview, while not referring to the “Oscar jinx” directly, did cover a similar mentality. Quoth the Murray, “people have this post-Oscar blowback. They start thinking, ‘I can’t do a movie unless it’s Oscar-worthy.’ It just seems people have difficulty making the right choice after that.” While magazines, websites and other publications have been touting the quality of his performance, an Oscar is the last thing Murray wants. When he was nominated in 2004 for Lost in Translation, talk of nominations, awards and the endless speculations left a bad taste with both he and Joaquin Phoenix (during the Walk the Line hype). If these awards serve as a detriment to growing or established careers, what is the point in winning one?
To add even more on the topic of actors, there’s the idea of what I like to call “pity Oscars,” when the Academy gives an award/nomination to an actor who’s had an incredible career but hasn’t won an Oscar for any of their great performances. The best example of this is Jeff Bridges. For the record, I don’t dislike Bridges by any means. In fact, I’m a staunch supporter of the Church of Dudeism. Anyway, he had been nominated four times prior, starting in 1972 with The Last Picture Show. With his performance in Crazy Heart, the Academy and audiences rediscovered how great of an actor he was and because of this he was nominated. When he took home the Oscar, it wasn’t really an award highlighting his performance in Crazy Heart, but for all of the movies that had come before that. I’m not saying he wasn’t great in the film, but it definitely wasn’t Oscar-worthy or the best performance of the year. While he didn’t win, the same can be said for Gary Oldman, who was nominated in 2012 for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. For decades, Oldman has been a nuanced talent who hadn’t received the credit he undoubtedly deserved. Giving him a nomination was the Academy’s way of showing him they acknowledged him. And he was pretty good in Tinker Tailor, but an Oscar nomination, seriously? And we all knew he wasn’t going to win, but the Academy nominated him so they could feel good about themselves and so that Oldman could now be an “Oscar nominated” actor instead of just “Gary Oldman.” But frankly, it wouldn’t make any difference if he were never nominated. It doesn’t change how talented he is or was before. After all, it’s just a title and there have been plenty of actors and actresses who are seen as legends who have never seen an Oscar nomination or win in their lifetime: Peter Lorre, Steve Buscemi, Mia Farrow, Donald Sutherland, Edward G. Robinson, Marilyn Monroe, John Turturro, John Goodman, Martin Sheen, the list goes on.
Does an award really justify a film’s or actor/actress’s merit? I don’t believe so. More often than not, it’s movies and actors who don’t win that have delivered superior cinematic experiences and performances. By saying that, I don’t mean that every film is a great one, just that often, the truly special performances and pictures are left by the wayside.
So, do we really need the Oscars? I don’t think we do. That being said, I know for certain I’ll be watching, as I do every year and having a darn good time (unless Neil Patrick Harris blows it).
_____________________________________________________________
Now let's get really depressed watching Philip Seymour Hoffman's 2006 acceptance speech.