The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have announced their nominees for the best in movies for 2013. As usual, I'm rolling my eyes.
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.
That's not the only limiting factor, though. The constricted group of movies that pass that hurdle still must overcome other kinds of biases. The main two issues at work here can be described 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.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
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 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.)
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.
That's not the only limiting factor, though. The constricted group of movies that pass that hurdle still must overcome other kinds of biases. The main two issues at work here can be described 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.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
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 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.)
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!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét