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.
But really, what's the big news? Anyone who follows this stuff is well aware of the necessity to not confuse the Oscar nominees with the actual best films of the year. The truth is that very often the real best movies of the year are those limited release, independent productions which hardly anybody ever sees. Those are disqualified more or less automatically.
Remember, though the Academy would like you to think of it as some kind of public service, it is in fact a trade union - or a federation of trade unions. Yet those who work on the little independent films often work for free or at least far below union rates. And many, if not most, are not members of the Academy. Do you really think a union is going to celebrate excellence among what they consider to be scabs? No surprises in that neglect.
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.
Using the upper case, Politics, refers to the ideological commitments of the members of the Academy - unionists after all! So, naturally films that depict capitalists and business men generally as venal and even sinister, that lament war (unless patriotic and "just"), celebrate the causes of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always well ahead of the curve in Academy-think.
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.
Plus, there's another side to these unwritten rules, that the elders must be honored, whether deserving or not. (Don't they have lifetime achievement awards for just this sort of thing?) You can make a dinner party game out of citing what one considers the most ridiculous injustice arising from this bit of intra-union politics. My vote goes to the passing over of Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another banal cookie-cutter performance in True Grit. But he was getting old you know...and had never won. (Yeah, maybe because he never deserved to win?)
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.)
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.
But really, what's the big news? Anyone who follows this stuff is well aware of the necessity to not confuse the Oscar nominees with the actual best films of the year. The truth is that very often the real best movies of the year are those limited release, independent productions which hardly anybody ever sees. Those are disqualified more or less automatically.
Remember, though the Academy would like you to think of it as some kind of public service, it is in fact a trade union - or a federation of trade unions. Yet those who work on the little independent films often work for free or at least far below union rates. And many, if not most, are not members of the Academy. Do you really think a union is going to celebrate excellence among what they consider to be scabs? No surprises in that neglect.
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.
Using the upper case, Politics, refers to the ideological commitments of the members of the Academy - unionists after all! So, naturally films that depict capitalists and business men generally as venal and even sinister, that lament war (unless patriotic and "just"), celebrate the causes of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always well ahead of the curve in Academy-think.
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.
Plus, there's another side to these unwritten rules, that the elders must be honored, whether deserving or not. (Don't they have lifetime achievement awards for just this sort of thing?) You can make a dinner party game out of citing what one considers the most ridiculous injustice arising from this bit of intra-union politics. My vote goes to the passing over of Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another banal cookie-cutter performance in True Grit. But he was getting old you know...and had never won. (Yeah, maybe because he never deserved to win?)
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.)
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 most original and bold voices in movie and TV commentary. If you're a fan of Mad Men, you can't miss his controversial 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!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét