On June 24, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences announced that they would be expanding the Best Picture race to 10 nominees, doubling what has been the normal for anyone under the age of 70 (before 1944, the Academy allowed, but did not require, up to 12 nominees in the category). When this was announced, I undoubtedly assumed that it would cause a ruckus among the hyper-elite Academy (of which I am a member…until I get the boot) and their loyal wannabes.
Last week, I received the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly (#1056 - July 17, 2009) and the somewhat Op-Ed piece (in this case, called “The Final Cut” with Mark Harris) was titled “Is Oscar Dumbing Down?”. After reading this article, I argued back and forth with myself whether or not to write a blog about the subject and whether or not to call out my colleague, Mr. Harris. Obviously, I have chosen both. Normally, I enjoy reading Mr. Harris’ opinion related articles but in this case, I could not disagree more.
Harris takes the position of the aforementioned “hyper-elite”. Whether he is a “wannabe” or an actual Academy member is for him to know and me to care less. However, in his one-page diatribe, he talks about how expanding the nominees to 10 movies will ultimately dumb down the field, making the Best Picture Oscar the equivalent of an MTV Moon Man. He admits that, pre-1944, 12 movies could be nominated but defends this by saying that it was normal for studios to push out a porn-worthy 50 flicks a year (my words, not his) and, therefore, they released more movies that deserved nominations. Since when did releasing 4-5 movies a week mean that they are better quality? It seems to me that this would lower their quality with less people working on each film and each film being pumped out in a matter of weeks, instead of months. Sure, pre-1944 was responsible for such classics as Casablanca, Citizen Kane, You Can’t Take it With You, Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Mutiny On the Bounty and a slew of Charlie Chaplin movies. But, that timeframe also featured such forgettable nominees and winners as Wilson, Going My Way, 49th Parallel, Random Harvest, Dark Victory, Disraeli and the first winner in 1928, Wings. My point is that every decade has great and forgettable movies and every decade has great forgettable movies, just because they were made in the “golden age” doesn’t mean that nothing will ever match their greatness.
But, I’m getting somewhat off point. Mark Harris goes on to say in his article that to nominate movies like Star Trek or The Hangover would “dumb down” the awards show and that just because a lot of people go see a movie does not mean that it is good. I agree with the latter point to an extent. A lot of movies, like the second Pirates of the Caribbean and, more recently, the second Transformers, are front loaded. Meaning that they break records out the gate but fall off quickly, ultimately taking in a not so monstrous overall gross because, to put it blatantly, they aren’t that good and box office longevity relies heavily, if not completely, on word of mouth. But what about the ones that do stick around? What about The Dark Knight? The movie broke every opening record and went on to compete (and ultimately fall short) with Titanic for the largest gross of all time. And, what about this summer’s biggest surprise, The Hangover? Sure, it’s a slapstick and vulgar comedy but word of mouth is so strong that it has grossed nearly a quarter billion dollars.
And, a quick sidenote about Titanic. That movie grossed $600 million and stands 12 years later as the highest grossing movie of all time (not adjusting for inflation). It went on to be nominated for a jaw-dropping 14 Academy Awards, but only two (Kate Winslet & Gloria Stuart, both losses) for acting. It won 11 of those nominations, including Best Picture. How does a movie win Best Picture when it can’t even garner any wins (and barely even get nominated) in the acting category or for writing? The movie was a spectacle yet somehow it was able to jettison past the normal “Best Picture” nomination process. How is this any different than The Dark Knight? Perhaps it is because the Academy didn’t want to answer the question “how could the number one movie of all time not win the Best Picture award?” Perhaps if The Dark Knight made about $70 million more, it would have won that “coveted” award. I guess the word of mouth just needed to get out to about 6 million more people.
People were up in arms about Wall-E and The Dark Knight not being nominated for Best Picture last year. But, according to Mark Harris, it should not have led to any changes because people should just get over it as you should not “stamp your feet until they change the rules.” Why not? Isn’t that what is supposed to happen? If there is an injustice, no matter how small, shouldn’t people speak out to make a change?
Also, doesn’t word of mouth usually mean that it’s good? And, IF The Hangover, Up, Wall-E or The Dark Knight are at the top of their genre, why can’t they be nominated for Best Picture? According to Mr. Harris, the pre-requisite to be nominated for Best Picture is a movie that should tug at your “heart” or affect your “tear ducts”. Why must a picture be depressing and sad to be a Best Picture contender? Since when did “Picture” mean “drama”? In my opinion, a “Best Picture” should be something that is the best of the genre and, above everything else, the best movie overall, whether it was funniest, saddest or most action packed. To me, it seems that a “Best Picture” in the eyes of the Academy is something that is mostly forgettable or, in some cases, nearly unwatchable, at least for repeat watching. Five years from now, what will you have the inkling to watch and what will you remember? Will you remember Frost/Nixon? Atonement? The Reader? Capote? Sideways? The Hours? Michael Clayton? Probably not. But you may just feel like popping in Up, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Star Trek, The Hangover, Tropic Thunder or maybe even a Tyler Perry movie or two. I say kudos to the Academy for finally making a change to get the Oscars out of their stuffy pants and acknowledge that great movies exist outside of dramas or indie films.
DID YOU KNOW?
Outside of 1998’s barely comedy ‘Shakespeare in Love’, no comedy has ever taken home the Best Picture statue.