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 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.
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.
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.
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.
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far 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, 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far 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, 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 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!
No comments:
Post a Comment