Perhaps we can answer that question by looking at several of the winners. No Country for Old Men. Crash. Million Dollar Baby. A Beautiful Mind. American Beauty. The English Patient. Forrest Gump. Schindler’s List. What do these movies have in common? I would propose that a common element among these films is a hard to define sense of “normal-ness.” The majority of the Best Picture winners are movies that feature characters that are very firmly planted in reality. Some of these characters might find themselves in unique circumstances, but they react in ways that normal people would be expected to react. In fact, many of the winners at the Oscars (not just Best Picture winners) are films either based on non-fictional stories or films based on obscure novels. Several of the Best Actor/Actress winners in recent years have been for portrayals of real people instead of fictional characters.
It seems to me that the members of the Academy favor films that are, quite simply, plain and ordinary. They tend to favor (unfairly, I might add) films with stories about real people going through real struggles. It’s almost as if the Academy feels the best sorts of movies are the movies that most realistically portray what your average everyday person goes through in his or her life. Most people in the world make tough decisions about their future. Most people in the world have elements from their past that they regret or would change if they could. Most people fall in love and deal with the complications of that. The Academy, it seems, is more appreciative of films that mimic reality instead of films that suspend reality. Which, in my opinion is stupid.
I have always believed, and continue still to believe, that films are most enjoyable when you are completely immersed in the fictional universe of that particular film. I’ve always believed that the best kind of movie is the one that suspends your sense of reality and gets you, the viewer, to accept something that you know is not really happening. A film that closely mimics the reality of life is one that is usually less enjoyable for me, because I live life every day. I deal with real people, with real emotions, with real difficult decisions on my own and I don’t want to pay money to watch characters on a screen deal with the same things. When I go to the movies, I want to be entertained. I want to see and experience things that are unique and unusual, to see extraordinary characters, to experience something new and exciting.
I think it is a downright shame and embarrassment to the film industry to go back over the years and see the exclusions in the category of Best Picture. The Disney animation renaissance of the late 80’s and early to mid 90’s passed by without a single winner in the category. Driving Miss Daisy, Dances with Wolves, Silence of the Lambs, and Unforgiven all took home Best Picture awards in this time period without so much as a nod to the defining animation films put out by Disney at the time. No offense is meant towards the films mentioned, but surely none of them has had nearly the same impact that Disney’s work has had nor does the general public look back so fondly on them as they do with the Disney's animations from the time. This period inspired an entire generation of artists and animators as well as establishing revolutionary new advances in computer animation technology. I also think it shameful that none of the Star Wars movies never won a Best Picture award, and only the original was even nominated. The Star Wars trilogy (original) is undoubtedly one of the most celebrated series of films in history and I believe it is worth a Best Picture award in consideration of the impact it has had on the world and an entire generation of youth. The Empire Strikes Back was the highest grossing film of 1980 and cemented Star Wars’ place among the finest science fiction stories, but when the Best Picture nominations were revealed it was nowhere in sight. In fact, the film pulling down the Best Picture award that year was a film titled Ordinary People, ironically enough. How appropriate.
Another thing I have suspicions about is in the area of budget. I am quite aware that a film’s financial success has no effect whatsoever on its chances for nomination, but it seems (especially in recent years) that films with a low budget stand a greater chance of scoring a nomination than those with a higher budget. Even if the higher budgeted film ends up being of a higher quality, the lower budget film seemingly has a higher probability of getting the honors. It’s almost like a decent film that was produced on a budget of $5 million is more deserving of recognition than an excellent film produced on a budget of $100 million. Perhaps the powers that be prefer an underdog scenario, or feel that a higher budget is an unfair advantage, but I think that films should be considered for the award regardless of the budget.
I suppose my point to all of this, is to say that I suppose the Academy has the right to nominate and award Best Picture to any film it wants. The award belongs to the Academy and it can do whatever it wants in that regard. For me however, the award will henceforth be near meaningless. I have determined that the Academy places value on the same things that I associate with mediocre cinema and therefore the Best Picture award loses much of its significance. The End.
I would like to thank Andrew Clark and Chris Monthie for influencing the content of this post.
1 comment:
Oh SWEET ACTION! This is like the general case of exactly what I just wrote about. Excellent work. I heartily agree.
Post a Comment