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.
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, using the upper case, I'm pointing to the ideological commitments that form the attitudes of most members of the Academy. These are attitudes not unexpected among union members. Those movies that depict capitalists and business men in a bad light, those that rail against the evils of war (unless of course the war is patriotic and "just"), those that depict the struggle of supposedly oppressed minorities and of course those with inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to be front-runners.
Using the lower case, politics, is intended to invoke the secret code that guides the Academy choices. One of these rules is that one cannot win too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category). One has to prove themselves - though it is an award for best performance not best career. Like numerous other Oscar watchers I had my moment of complete exasperation when I realized I'd had enough and could not any longer take it seriously.
For me, the year was 1995, and in their twisted wisdom the Academy awarded best director honors to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. In the process, they rather overlooked a little flick called Pulp Fiction, which wasn't merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. But, hey, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! We can't be doing something like that? Ever since, I've found the Oscars pretty much laughable. Similar was the treatment of director Peter Jackson who, according to the code, couldn't be honored for the first - and, as it turned out, the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And on the other side of the coin, there are the elders who have to be honored, whether they've earned it or not. (Isn't that what the lifetime achievement awards are for?) So, among the most grievous results in the acting category, Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy had to go-wanting so as to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
And, perhaps most annoying of all, it seems on occasion they won't award people just because the Academy doesn't want them getting too full of themselves. They are a union; the collective must be greater than the individual. Hence, some great performances are just mysteriously snubbed. (It is a bit weird how any old trite endeavor of Meryl Streep is exempted from this policy. I guess you always need a token for credible deniability.) In any event, this seems to explain this year's exclusion of yet another inspired and heart wrenching 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 blog post arguing just that.)
Taking all this into account, then, I am led, as ever, to conclude that as another year passes and my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or any other year) fails to be even nominated by the stately old Academy, nothing less could have been expected. Indeed, a commitment to integrity and quality in the movies somewhere remains. It just isn't anywhere near 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, using the upper case, I'm pointing to the ideological commitments that form the attitudes of most members of the Academy. These are attitudes not unexpected among union members. Those movies that depict capitalists and business men in a bad light, those that rail against the evils of war (unless of course the war is patriotic and "just"), those that depict the struggle of supposedly oppressed minorities and of course those with inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to be front-runners.
Using the lower case, politics, is intended to invoke the secret code that guides the Academy choices. One of these rules is that one cannot win too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category). One has to prove themselves - though it is an award for best performance not best career. Like numerous other Oscar watchers I had my moment of complete exasperation when I realized I'd had enough and could not any longer take it seriously.
For me, the year was 1995, and in their twisted wisdom the Academy awarded best director honors to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. In the process, they rather overlooked a little flick called Pulp Fiction, which wasn't merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. But, hey, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! We can't be doing something like that? Ever since, I've found the Oscars pretty much laughable. Similar was the treatment of director Peter Jackson who, according to the code, couldn't be honored for the first - and, as it turned out, the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And on the other side of the coin, there are the elders who have to be honored, whether they've earned it or not. (Isn't that what the lifetime achievement awards are for?) So, among the most grievous results in the acting category, Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy had to go-wanting so as to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
And, perhaps most annoying of all, it seems on occasion they won't award people just because the Academy doesn't want them getting too full of themselves. They are a union; the collective must be greater than the individual. Hence, some great performances are just mysteriously snubbed. (It is a bit weird how any old trite endeavor of Meryl Streep is exempted from this policy. I guess you always need a token for credible deniability.) In any event, this seems to explain this year's exclusion of yet another inspired and heart wrenching 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 blog post arguing just that.)
Taking all this into account, then, I am led, as ever, to conclude that as another year passes and my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or any other year) fails to be even nominated by the stately old Academy, nothing less could have been expected. Indeed, a commitment to integrity and quality in the movies somewhere remains. It just isn't anywhere near Hollywood Boulevard.
About the Author:
Notice has been taken of Mickey Jhonny as one of the freshest, most audacious voices in movie and TV commentary. If you're a fan of Mad Men, you won't want to 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 has been an online bombshell. Don't miss it!
No comments:
Post a Comment