I still credit the Oscars in many ways for pushing my early cinephilia along. You see, I was one of those kids that read encyclopedias religiously. The "Motion Picture" section was my favorite and I read through it again and again and again. At the end of the section was the Oscars listing, going all the way up to the publication date of the encyclopedias, 1968. Yes, 1968. Anyway, I used the Oscars as my first ever guide as to what movies to see. Since there were no video stores, cable tv, Netflix, Amazon or i-tunes it meant I had to get lucky and have one of them air on PBS or network late-night tv but nevertheless, it provided me with a basic list of movies to see.
It didn't take long once I started seeing movies from around the world, movies listed on the Sight and Sound poll and movies from directors with whole books devoted to them to discover that the Academy didn't hold the art of cinema to a very high standard. So many of the movies honored over the years haven't been the Best Picture, haven't had the Best Performances, haven't had the Best Screenplays or haven't had the Best Cinematography that it became a kind of pastime to poke fun at some of the Oscar picks while still, somehow, holding them in a certain esteem. I think it was Pauline Kael who once remarked that the Oscars are extraordinary in that one can use them interchangeably as examples of either the highest standard or the lowest standard of cinema and people will understand the difference. In other words, someone can dismiss a performance by saying its the kind of performance that wins Oscars, meaning sentimental, overdone and filled to the brim with noble posturing. In the next breath someone can extol the virtues of a great performance by declaring it to be "Oscar worthy!" We all understand "the kind of performance that wins Oscars" means "not very good" while an "Oscar worthy performance" means "excellent." We all know what the Academy members do award, but we also know what they should award and therein lies the difference.
Still, with each passing year I find myself mellowing to Oscar's past transgressions as the thought of anything important being associated with them becomes more and more humorous. There was a time when Cimarron or The Greatest Show on Earth or The Sound of Music winning Best Picture would have really bugged me but now, despite not thinking highly of any of them, I actually get nostalgic to see them again. So they won Best Picture, who cares? Are Morocco and The Front Page from 1931, Singin' in the Rain from 1952 or Repulsion from 1965, all from the respective years of those three winners, forgotten now because they didn't get the Oscar? No, of course not. And you know what? How Green Was My Valley is a damn fine movie! I like Chariots of Fire too. And The Sting won Best Picture in the year when Cries and Whispers, The Exorcist, American Graffiti, The Long Goodbye and Spirit of the Beehive were all eligible but I don't begrudge it that. Quite frankly, if many of these lesser films hadn't won Best Picture I might never have seen them and many of them are a lot of fun even if they're not the most shining examples of the cinematic art form.
So this Sunday watch the Oscars or ignore them completely but whether you're a casual movie fan or a true dyed-in-the-wool cinephile try not to get too upset at the outcome. While the ideal of the award may still be the highest achievement in the art of cinema we all know the real award doesn't mean a thing. And if a movie's greatness, like that of a Citizen Kane or a La Règle du Jeu, can sustain it in perpetuity without any Oscars for Best Picture, why not let the lesser works go ahead and win it. In many cases, it's the only chance they have of being remembered at all.
30 comments:
Great post, Greg. I'm with you. The Oscars are a funny thing: I get a rush when one of my favorites wins, and yet when Oscar goes boringly mainstream I just shrug my shoulders and say, "Aw, it's the Oscars; who cares."
There's a good debate to be had over the overall positive/negative effect of the Oscars. Certainly, for reasons you touch on, they were more important in the past than they are now in terms of allowing Hollywood to market itself in the pre-cable/Internet era. But those who complain that the Academy Awards are running behind (which they are) and award the wrong films (which they sometimes do) and send the wrong messages (kind of) ignore that even in cases when all that is true the Academy Awards help bring the "average American" along. And when the middle moves, that's good for the leaders, too.
So, for example, now everyone likes to rip Dances With Wolves as a Best Picture winner. OK. Fine. But the Oscar hype around that film caused more people to see it than would have otherwise. As a result, casual moviegoers and Hollywood found out that movies longer than two hours and including subtitles didn't have to be overly arty (in the opinion of the masses) commercial bombs. And so Dances helped break those imaginary barriers around running time and subtitles. And that's good for everyone, including filmmakers who were making those films already but couldn't get them seen by wider audiences.
What good would come from the already commercially successful Avatar winning Best Picture? I don't know. Maybe nothing. As a fan of 2-D, maybe it's sending the wrong message and allowing Hollywood to feel good about finding ways to take money from the public. But someday, if 3-D evolves into a less gimmicky artform, we'll all look back and say Avatar's Oscar hype helped pave the way.
I'm rambling now. Point is, I enjoy the Oscars for what they are. I'm OK with what they aren't. Not always, I admit. But on the whole.
Jason, I don't think anything will be detracted or added with Avatar's win because it's already so hugely successful on its own but in the case of smaller less successful films I've gotten to the point where I'm kind of glad for them when they win. Like you said about Dances with Wolves, even if cinephiles don't like it the Oscars do, in their small way, send a message to middle-America that "art" is okay and can be entertaining. It would be better if they awarded more deserving films to send that message but at the very least, during the broadcast, viewers are made aware of foreign films through the Best Foreign Language clips that might actually spark their interest. I know the clips from Downfall immediately grabbed a lot of people because there are at least three non-cinephile, casual moviegoers I know who saw it. Why? They saw those clips of Ganz as Hitler at the Oscars. Seriously, including my father-in-law who has no taste for foreign films.
There's a gap in my Oscar viewing -- about twenty-five or thirty years when I either ignored them or hung around for the first few Awards and went to bed. But in the last five years, my lifestyle having altered for less stress, I find myself watching (with an embarrassing amount of enthusiasm) the pre-Oscar interview show, the Red Carpet show, and the Awards in their entirety, right through the rush of end credits.
It's the one night of the year I watch TV, and I seem to love every minute of it.
Of course the downer is the day after, reading the disenchantment of too many bloggers and comments about how terrible the Oscars are. In relation to what, no one says.
How we'll fare with five additional Best Picture nominees and big, fat, bloated, alcoholic Alec Baldwin as co-cost is anyone's guess. But, if there's a movie star in a tux, I'll be there. If there's Angelina Jolie in Jimmy Choo's, I'll be there. If there's a horrible tune up for Best Song illustrated by even worse choreography, I'll be there. And if there's a room full of the priviledged who strike me as aesthetic hacks, why, I'll be there, too.
Flickhead, or should I call you Tom Joad, that's a great assessment of the feeling you get after a lot of time away from the awards. I started watching the show in the seventies and while I am often indifferent to the show itself I like seeing the winners as the show progresses. It is, for lack of a better word, kind of exciting.
I am amused more than anything else by the next day critiques of the show mainly because I don't see any real difference from one year to the next. There's a host or two, clips, speeches thanking agents and the final big award. And yet on Monday you'll be told, definitely no less, that this was the best/worst show ever! I don't know, they all kind of seem the same to me.
I remember liking Johnny Carson the best as the host but I do recall thinking Steve Martin was pretty good last time he hosted. I'm sure Baldwin will be fine, playing his lounge act smarmy charm to the hilt.
Your thoughts on the Oscars more or less echo my own - as there are five stages of death, I think every movie lover goes through the five stages of Oscar. It ends with acceptance, the inclusive circle jerk is what it is.
But I actually love the 10 nominees thing. First, it's a great way to acknowledge the Oscar's past and, honestly, it makes it much more interesting because movies that wouldn't normally win will be able to win now because every movie gets something from every ballot. In years where there aren't huge frontrunners like Avatar, crazy shit is gonna win (if they keep this up), which to me is a good thing.
Plus, my biggest problem with the Oscars is that they would simultaneously validate crap but be inclusive and anti-populist at the same time, last year being the most extreme examples of this that I can recall - with the exception of the movie that actually won, did anyone actually like those movies? Benjamin Button, The Reader, Frost/Nixon or Milk - does anyone even remember them?
At least the ten nominees opens up the door to more populist films. Some have argued that this will result in films being awarded that are not worthy, to which I can only reply that the Oscars have almost never awarded that which was worthy and, on the rare occasion they did, it was an accident.
In years where there aren't huge frontrunners like Avatar, crazy shit is gonna win (if they keep this up), which to me is a good thing.
That is a possiblity, one I look forward to. It seems like we've had big time frontrunners for a while now and I want a genuine surprise. What counts as a surprise now is when no one knows which of two frontrunners will win. Like in 2007, would it be No Country or There Will be Blood but everyone knew it would be one of those. But in the past there have been genuine surprises, like 1981. The only question was whether Reds or On Golden Pond would win. When Beatty won Best Director it seemed we had the winner. And then, from out of nowhere, Chariots of Fire gets announced. People who weren't watching then don't remember but that was an actual, once in a lifetime, nobody saw it coming, genuine upset. It was a shock. I want more of that to happen.
... did anyone actually like those movies? Benjamin Button, The Reader, Frost/Nixon or Milk - does anyone even remember them?
I tried three times on DVD to get past the 20 minute mark with Benjamin Button and couldn't do it. I simply have too many other movies to watch to struggle through something that within seconds revealed itself to be a veritable storage house for cliche, sentimentality and life-draining obviousness.
The way you describe the voting guidelines in your opening paragraph applies only to the nomination process. Everyone gets to vote for everything when it comes to picking winners from the nominees. That's how we end up with Memoirs of a Geisha winning Best Cinematography over The New World, and whatnot. From the Oscar website:
Final Balloting Process
Final ballots are mailed to voting members in late-January and are due back to PricewaterhouseCoopers the Tuesday prior to Oscar Sunday for final tabulation.
The Academy’s entire active membership is eligible to select Oscar winners in all categories, although in five – Animated Short Film, Live Action Short Film, Documentary Feature, Documentary Short Subject, and Foreign Language Film – members can vote only after attesting they have seen all of the nominated films in those categories.
Johnny Carson was the best that I've seen. I remember thinking Bob Hope was a real drag -- his post-post-legacy after his post-legacy of 8 on the Lam and Boy, Did I Get a Wrong Number!
BLH, you are correct. I went ahead and took out that part of the post. Thanks.
Flickhead, I don't remember much of Hope at all. I was just a waif but I kind of remember the whole Hearts and Minds hubbub that occured and that Hope seemed like a jerk. That's about it. Otherwise my Oscar watching started with Johnny and I loved his emceeing of it. He did a great job.
Does this mean you finally saw SPIRIT OF THE BEEHIVE?
Honestly, I'll be watching so that I can cover the awards for my site, but the Oscars as a TV program bores me. I really just want to know who wins and be done with it. And as for my personal feelings about the awards, I'm definitely on the "WOOHOO"-if-my-guy-wins, "Oscars suck"-if-my-movie-loses end of things, similar to what you said. If they pick the right movies, it's proof of those movies' greatness. If they pick the wrong ones, it's proof of the Oscars' vast imperfection.
But do you really think Avatar will take it? I see the best director/best picture deal going in the opposite direction: Hurt Locker taking best picture, Cameron taking best director. Not that Avatar is particularly well directed (certainly not even in the ballpark of Hurt Locker or Inglourious Basterds), but I could see them giving it to Cameron for the sheer effort he put into the film as director.
I just really can't see them saying that Avatar is the best movie of the year.
Bill, I've seen it three times now. I was instantly hypnotized by it. I think it's one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. Such is the extent of my instant obsession with it that I even put together a quick animated short based on the opening pictures on my YouTube account. It does what cinema is supposed to do: tell a story visually that enters into the mind and soul of the character.
So yeah, I've seen it.
Robert, you make a lot of good points. I am an average at best predictor of the Oscars. I do think Avatar will win Best Picture and Bigelow, Best Director, but what the hell do I know? It's a hunch, nothing more.
The thing is, if you read my review of Avatar, I give it a middling, average, nothing special review. Were I to rate movies from 1 to 5 stars it would be a solid 2 1/2 stars. And yet, in that review I praise, and sincerely, Cameron's expertise at filming an action scene and wish younger action directors would take their cues from him or Spielberg in how to make an action sequence work. It works by keeping the action visible and the characters centered in frame and not manically cutting away and ramping and blurring every four or five frames. And yet, no matter how many times Cameron and Spielberg do these things and enjoy phenomenal success as a result, younger directors think the other way is the way to go. It's almost willful stupidity on their parts.
What I'm trying to say, is that for all my greatest wishes that Tarantino and Inglourious Basterds win everything I wouldn't be offended if Cameron won Best Director even if I'm not crazy about the movie itself.
Just want to second (third?) the love for Spirit of the Beehive, a lovely film.
tdraicer:
There was a time back in my teenage years (the 70s) when the films and actors I wanted to win mostly won, but it has been a very long time since anyone I wanted to win anything actually won (or in most cases were even nominated).
But then James Mason, Claude Raines, Peter O'Toole, and Cary Grant (among many other notables)never won Oscars, so the never-won crowd is pretty distinguished company.
Ryan, it really is quite beautiful and entrancing to me. It exceeded all my expectations.
tdraicer, and let's not forget the directors who never won a Best Director Oscar: Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Howard Hawks, Ingmar Bergman, Stanley Kubrick, King Vidor, Robert Altman, Yasujiro Ozu, Jean Renoir, Jean-Luc Godard, Francois Truffaut, William Dieterle, Ernst Lubitsch, Buster Keaton, Luis Bunuel, Fritz Lang, Jane Campion, Sergei Eisenstein, Charlie Chaplin, Michael Powell, David Lynch, Sam Peckinpah, Hayao Miyazaki, David Cronenberg, Hal Ashby, Sergio Leone, Jean Pierre Melville, Preston Sturges, Ernst Lubitsch, John Sturges, Don Siegel, Robert Bresson, John Cassavetes, John Sayles, Nicholas Roeg, lina wertmuller, Kenji Mizoguchi, Satyajit Ray, James Whale, Carl Dreyer, Max Ophuls, Werner Herzog, Michelangelo Antonioni, Rouben Mamoulian, Louis Malle, F. W. Murnau, G.W. Pabst, Ken Russell, Douglas Sirk, Jacques Tati, Josef von Sternberg, Erich von Stroheim, Allen Dwan, Henry Hathaway and William Wellman.
Whew, with a list like that, I'd be embarrassed to win the Oscar for Best Director. Of course, then you'd be in the company of Kevin Costner and Richard Attenborough. Ouch.
Greg,
Yeah, I wouldn't be offended if Cameron got best director, either. I'm with you in that I think Tarantino should get it, but, I don't know, I just don't see it happening.
You're definitely right about the Avatar action scenes. Very well filmed. I don't know why other directors feel they need to move so fast that the action's impossible to follow.
However, I most definitely WILL be offended if Avatar gets best picture. That'll pretty much be the nail in the coffin for my respect of the Academy.
Last night I finally caught up with The Hurt Locker. It was compelling, but in the manner of Chinese take-out. Fifteen minutes after it ended, I'd pretty much forgotten what I'd seen and was hungry again.
The only Best Picture nominee I haven't seen is Avatar, but, of all the others, Inglourious Basterds is the only one that is memorable not only as a feature, but also for its individual scenes. It really is a great achievement.
If District 9 sneaks in and wins, I'll eat my shorts. Seriously: come on over Monday morning and you can watch me eat them.
Nice post, Greg.
As a kid, I got all excited for the Oscars every year. With the passing years, I'm less and less excited about who wins, but continue to look forward to them simply becasuse my friend throws such a great Oscar-watching party.
Last night I finally caught up with The Hurt Locker. It was compelling, but in the manner of Chinese take-out. Fifteen minutes after it ended, I'd pretty much forgotten what I'd seen and was hungry again
That was what I was trying to get across about it a while ago when I did a post on it and Inglourious Basterds. I don't deny it's a well-made film and a tense, gritty drama. But after the end, I didn't go back to it in my mind. At all. And the heavy metal music at the end while we watch him, Terminator style, go walking back in his bomb suit to another diffusing situation, just made me laugh. It instantly deflated all the drama that came before and turned it into a cheap 80s action flick.
You should see Avatar only so I can read a classic Flickhead style rant against it. That would be delightful.
Robert, prepare to start hammering in that final nail.
Pat, it's easy to get excited and also, if you were ever involved in acting or filming or have a desire to, hope for yourself to be there one day. I can go on and on about mediocrity and the Oscars all I want but I sure as hell wouldn't turn one down.
I saw an interview with James Woods once and he was talking about his nomination for Salvadore. He talked to his friend Richard Dreyfuss after getting nominated and told Dreyfuss he didn't care about it. He said Dreyfuss told him what would happen. Dreyfuss told him you will deflate it all month long, talk about the mediocrity awarded, say it's no big deal, etc. Then, on the actual night, at the actual moment they read the nominations, you will say to yourself, "I will sell my soul and everything else I have if that card has my name on it!" Woods said that was in fact what happened. When that moment comes you just desperately want your name to be the one announced.
I dunno... isn't Avatar almost three hours? And isn't it a cartoon? A frikkin' three hour cartoon? Jeez... I'd rather watch Basterda again.
Run, Shosanna, run!
I left the hammer in it's box. Saved me some time and energy. (I did have some nails in my pocket, though.)
Robert, we were spared. Praise be to Eywa!
Greg,
No kidding. WOOHOO!
Greg, this post is lovely (sorry I got to it so late!). My experience was a lot like yours-- it wasn't encyclopedias, but big oversized movie books from the library (with titles like THE GREAT MOVIES, or THE BEST SCIENCE FICTION FILMS and what have you) that fueled my cinephilia as a kid. And the Oscars were a big part of that, too. I determined during one ceremony that I was going to see every "best picture" winner ever, thinking that even if they weren't "the best," they still gave me an interesting view of what Hollywood was thinking at any given time. I got pretty far, but AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS always stymied me. Damn you, Niven!!!
And yes, HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY is a superb film.
Thanks Brian. I did see them all having made the same vow. Up until the 2000's at least. I've seen everything before then but in the 2000's I still have three I haven't seen: Chicago, Crash, and Slumdog Millionaire. Still waiting for that magic moment when I really want to see them but it hasn't happened yet.
Post a Comment