New rule for Best Picture Nominees

[Big Magilla]

Though reprehensible we can at least understand why films like Fox's Cleopatra, Doctor Dolittle and Hello, Dolly! and Universal's Anne of the Thousand Days were nominated. The studios, as they had done since the beginning of the Oscars, urged their employees to vote for those films, though unlike earlier times their very existence depended on Oscar exposure adding to the box-office take of those films.

Airport, The Towering Inferno and other fair to middling films that had already made as much money as they were likely to make may have benefited from this mentality but may have been actually liked well enough by Academy members to have been nominated on their merits, questionable though they may have been.

Now, of course, there is no longer a studio system with huge numbers of Academy members depending on Oscar recognition for their livelihood. There is, however, as Oscar Guy pointed out, a large contingent of artisans whose continued existence in the industry depends on the success of blockbuster films to guarantee their future employment. Now, however, that just about everything being produced by Hollywood is a blockbuster, do these film really need the prestige of an Oscar nomination for Best Picture to insure that they will hired to make another one?

Without the pressure, these artisans, who are also artists, may vote their hearts and minds instead of their pocketbooks. The whole thing could backfire on Ganis and his cronies with the bulk of the nominations going to critically applauded works with only one or two slots going to the blockbusters.

I suspect there is still a large block of voters out there who will not vote for an animated film for best picture as long as animated features have their own category.

The more I think about it, though, the really stunningly bad decision made in the last few days is the decision to purge the honorary awards from the telecast. Some of my fondest Oscar memories are of the special awards accorded Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, Myrna Loy, Alfred Hitchcock, Howard Hawks, Barbara Stanwyck, and yes, Lawrence Wiengarten, the latter because it marked the only Academy appearance of Katharine Hepburn who wouldn't have shown up otherwise.

[Mister Tee]

And finally, while I'm not a fan of The Reader, in the real world, the world beyond this Oscar board, its inclusion in the Best Picture nominees didnt really damage the Academy's reputation - in the next years it will be quickly forgotten and it will never become as infamous as, for example, a Hello Dolly! or a Mutiny of the Bounty or other movies of this kind which with this new rule we will have more chances of seeing nominated in the future.

I was thinking along these lines last night. My whole history with the Oscars was watching these dreary white elephant movies get best picture nominations -- sometimes, as Damien mentioned earlier, when they were enormous money-makers, like Airport, but, most frightening, often despite being seen as huge flops relative to cost: the ones Italiano mentions, Dr. Dolittle, Nicholas and Alexandra, on and on. Meantime, the writing and directing categories were spotlighting the films that really mattered, the ones that are remembered; the dichotomy was wider than at any other time. Some years the Academy did better than others (they at least nominated Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate, even if they ultimately rewarded In the Heat of the Night). But one look at the best picture slate of 1969, where so many legendary films are omitted in favor of Dolly of Anne of a Thousand Days, will tell you how deep this pathology ran.

When this stopped happening in the mid-70s -- Towering Inferno (actually a modestly enjoyable movie by the genre's standards) was pretty much the last such instance until Ghost -- it was as if the sun had come out after a long rain. Not to say there weren't best picture contenders that made us gag over the ensuing years -- The Goodbye Girl, On Golden Pond, even a winner like Gandhi. But it wasn't the same utterly corrupt culture that had made an object of loathing like The Alamo or Cleopatra an instant Oscar candidate.

But now we seem to have come full circle: people are moaning about even well-reviewed movies -- the Hud/In Cold Blood/They Shoot Horses equivalents of this era -- getting on the best picture list if they didn't make enough money. And the crying out for the inclusion of popular movies makes me think there are people who truly want a return to the period of The Longest Day and The Sand Pebbles.

It all brings to mind a wonderful exchange from an Oscar-winning short from the 60s called Why Man Creates:

First Man: Did it ever occur to you that ideas attack institutions, and then become institutions that are attacked by ideas?

Second Man: No.

[Big Magilla]

If I recall correctly, Ganis is from the Public Relations branch, not the Producers branch

Even worse!

[OscarGuy]

If I recall correctly, Ganis is from the Public Relations branch, not the Producers branch

[Big Magilla]

I just looked Sid Ganis up on the IMDB. I had no idea who he was prior to his becoming president of the Academy.

With his resume it's questionable how he even became an Academy member let alone its leader.

This is the man who started out producing "The Making of Raiders of the Lost Ark" and graduated to producing full length features like produced Deuce Bigelow: Gigolo and several Adam Sandler movies. His only prestige effort was Akeelah and the Bee.

He's turning the Oscars into the Golden Globes. What else does he have up his sleeve? The Pia Zadora Award for Best Newcomer?

[ITALIANO]

It's not so much that we think that the five movies that missed are masterpieces. More that we wonder just how many of those films will be good. Is it gonna be one masterpiece/great film, three mediocrities and one terrible film? Having no real precedent as our most recent precedent is 65 years old, we have no idea.

And we will keep having no idea, Okri. Because how on earth will you decide which of the ten nominated movies WOULDN'T have been nominated in the old five-nods format? Sure, you can try and guess, but the truth is that you will never know. Had this happened in the famous Dreamgirls year (and of course Dreamgirls would have been among the ten nominees) everyone here - except me - would have sworn that it would have also been among the first five, even without a Best Director nomination. And about, say, something like Seabiscuit most of us - including me - would be sure that it could have never been a Best Picture nominee had the slots only been five.

So trust me, statistically - and Oscar Guy is right, IF the voting system is the same - the list of nominees will be like in the past years, only longer. With, probably, a slightly heavier influence from the votes by those in the technical branches (who, being a lesser number than those in the Acting or Directing branches, were marginally less represented in the five-nods format than they could be in the new one).

And finally, if all this is really due to The Dark Knight not having been nominated, well, I dont know if this was such a big shock in America, but honestly on this side of the ocean nobody noticed it. There have been far worse oversights in Oscar history.

[Okri]

But it's not like better movies will necessarily be nominated if if it's ten instead of five. I dont understand the logic of this. The Academy will still be the Academy, will always nominate according to its own (right or wrong) criteria, and, rationally and statistically speaking, this will just mean that we will have a double chance of seeing such movies nominated for Best Picture. And some deserving movies too, but I mean, do you really think that till now the five "also rans" which narrowly missed being "Best Picture nominees" were unforgettable masterpieces? Then you live in an (American) dream.

It's not so much that we think that the five movies that missed are masterpieces. More that we wonder just how many of those films will be good. Is it gonna be one masterpiece/great film, three mediocrities and one terrible film? Having no real precedent as our most recent precedent is 65 years old, we have no idea. Sure, we can all guess on the near misses (films like Hotel Rwanda or Cold Mountain... or yes, Dreamgirls), but after that??? AMPAS nominates via it's own criteria, I agree, but with a smaller number of votes now required to get that nomination, we can see some odder choices popping up. If you look at any poll, that's what we tend to see.

Is it the semi-popular "adult" efforts that will get nominated - like American Gangster? Is it the writing + acting nominees that stand the greatest shot? Recent films like Vera Drake, Notes on a Scandal, A History of Violence, and The Constant Gardener fit into that category and don't seem entirely awful with the best picture designation beside their names.

As for The Reader, it won't be considered the worst nominee, but it is the film that beat The Dark Knight to a nomination, was the film with the smallest box office before the nominees etc. I do genuinely think it will be considered an impetus (as a corrolary to the Batman film) for this change. Sid Ganis suggested as much when asked about The Dark Knight

I agree with the rest, but in tandem with the other rule change, I do think the oscars are positioning themselves closer to the marketing side of things than ever before.

[OscarGuy]

I don't think anyone here really expects this new rule change to mean a higher quality of nominee. Matter of fact, I think we're all expecting it to force the inclusion of more lackluster fare like The Last Samurai, American Gangster and so forth. While it would be nice and altruistic to think that films that didn't get nominations b/c they didn't have enough support will include some of the critics darlings, I don't think we can expect more than maybe one or two extra.

Of course, all of this entirely hinges on HOW they will be nominating and tabulating the results. If we presume it's the old way, it will probably be a similar list to what we've all gotten, just doubled (two or three $100+M films, two or three somewhat indies, one or two real indies and the remainder filled with middle-brow, Harvey-pushed types of films).

However, if they alter how they tabulate and go to a plurality vote or some other weird Top Ten method, we could see a more populist list. While actors, directors and writers will continue to nominate the little-seen and obscure work, the techs and the producers will nominate the ones that A) keep the most of them employed or B) are big blockbusters. So, this could work to draw in bigger films, but we won't really know for certain, as in this is all speculation at this point (harmless, for sure, and somewhat intriguing), is that the Academy will not change its voting habits just to nominate bigger pictures nor will it alter how many small movies it chooses.

[ITALIANO]

But it's not like better movies will necessarily be nominated if if it's ten instead of five. I dont understand the logic of this. The Academy will still be the Academy, will always nominate according to its own (right or wrong) criteria, and, rationally and statistically speaking, this will just mean that we will have a double chance of seeing such movies nominated for Best Picture. And some deserving movies too, but I mean, do you really think that till now the five "also rans" which narrowly missed being "Best Picture nominees" were unforgettable masterpieces? Then you live in an (American) dream.

Mister Tee is right - we shouldnt only take this year as an example. It's history which counts, and history is more than just one year. Still, if all this is done so that more people can see The Visitor on dvd, well, how shall I put it, I think one can live even without such a unique experience (and we all know that it's exactly a movie like The Visitor which COULD be nominated, rather than, say, a truly great but obscure Iranian film). And if I have to be honest, while I'm sure that one of the good side effects of a film award is to help the box-office of movies, if rules are created based on that, or to increase that, well, it's the beginning of the end.

But I don't think it's really about this, as I don't think (and for once, Eric, I will be pro-Bill Condon), as others here have said or implied, that it's just so that his movies can finally get a Best Picture nomination. The idea may not be the most intelligent ever, but I'm sure that the man isn't that shallow. I don't think that his past, probably frustrating experiences as a (bad?) loser led him to this - he genuinely thinks that he's helping the Academy (and the ratings of the Oscar night telecast) by making it even more "mainstream" than it already is - because it's true that there is a double chance also that some big, commercial, very popular movies will be among the selected ten. But as we all know, big, commercial, very popular movies are very often very bad (yes, Sabin, there's also The Dark Knight, I know...). And in a perfect world a serious film award, needless to say, shouldn't be too worried about box-office, either its own and the one of the films it must honor.

And finally, while I'm not a fan of The Reader, in the real world, the world beyond this Oscar board, its inclusion in the Best Picture nominees didnt really damage the Academy's reputation - in the next years it will be quickly forgotten and it will never become as infamous as, for example, a Hello Dolly! or a Mutiny of the Bounty or other movies of this kind which with this new rule we will have more chances of seeing nominated in the future.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1246097529

[Okri]

Reiterating what Mister Tee said, here's a chart Nathaniel/The Film Experience made in 2008 after the No Country.. oscars.

I don't think what Sabin says is entirely wrong. Lets stop picking on The Reader for now, but if you watched Ray, Chocolat, Finding Neverland, Babel, Frost/Nixon, The Hours, The Cider House Rules etc. Outside the academy and their progeny, I can't really imagine anyone genuinely believing these are among the five/ten best films of the year.

[Damien]

One of the things I've always been amazed about -- not around here, of course, around here it's a big DUH -- is that the press constantly comments about how the Academy ignores hugely popular movies, and yet never seems to suggest what pictures they'd like to see replace the Academy films. Even in respected journalistic outlets, like Time or the LA Times, columnists will comment on the lack of popular films recognized yet conveniently fail to mention what the other options are.

The Academy can't win -- when it nominates something hugely popular like Airport, The Towering Inferno or Ghost, its ridiculed for having lousy taste.

If people want popular movies rewarded at Oscar time, then they'd better shut up about The Greatest SHow On Earth winning Best Picture.



Edited By Damien on 1246059810

[The Original BJ]

One of the things I've always been amazed about -- not around here, of course, around here it's a big DUH -- is that the press constantly comments about how the Academy ignores hugely popular movies, and yet never seems to suggest what pictures they'd like to see replace the Academy films. Even in respected journalistic outlets, like Time or the LA Times, columnists will comment on the lack of popular films recognized yet conveniently fail to mention what the other options are.

I agree with Mister Tee, that last year was a unique situation (part of what I meant when I called The Dark Knight an anomaly) -- the five highest grossing movies last year included the Batman film and WALL-E, two films which conceivably could have placed on Oscar's shortlist and wouldn't have been outrageous (and would have been BETTER nominees than some than actually were.)

But the same arguments were made in '07, when the Academy nominated a whole bunch of "unpopular" films (despite them choosing big b.o. hit Juno and reasonably successful No Country). And yet no one seemed to be suggesting what the nominees would have been had the Academy gone with the highest-grossing films that year: the third installments of Spider-Man, Shrek, and Pirates of the Caribbean, the fifth Harry Potter, and Transformers. (And for what it's worth, that top five is as hideous a top five as we've had in years -- usually at least something of remote quality makes it that high.)

I'd like one critic/columnist/media commentator to point out that if people want the most popular movies nominated, this is what it's going to be, and then ask if that's really preferable to No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, which despite their "low" grosses, certainly hit a chord within culture (didn't "friendo" and "I drink your milkshake" become almost immediate catch-phrases?)

I just think the press/industry wants to have its cake and eat it too. It's so easy to latch onto The Dark Knight and WALL-E, but if you really want to argue that higher-grossing films should be recognized, you're going to have to accept major nominations for Hancock, Sex and the City, and Madagascar 2, and no one in the mainstream media seems to be pointing that out. (And who could blame them?)

I must say, this discussion has been quite interesting, and I'm glad something kicked off the year like this.

[Mister Tee]

The Academy's taste is just anathema to most moviegoers, plain and simple. The big problem is that the movies nominated are middle-brow prestige tailor-made for the Academy rest home. Simply put: now everybody realizes that these films are in no way the five best of the year.

Sabin, I'm not sure if you mean to make this argument, but you seem to be implying that the Academy is 100% at fault here; that the utter crap taste of the mass audience plays no part in the dilemma. Using last year as your examaple is a bit unfair, because it was an utterly unique situation, where there were, for once, two reasonably well-praised box-office hits (though I think revisionism has somewhat rose-ified The Dark Knight's critical reception; it was well-reviewed on summer movie terms, but it didn't exactly compete for the NY Critics' best picture prize). And I'd argue -- probably for the umpteenth time here -- that the reasons for the exclusion of Wall E and Dark Knight were not "we hate movies that make money", but rather specific problems with the movies' classifications. Dark Knight was not just a comic book movie; it was the sixth or so Batman movie of this era. Sequels, apart from the revered Godfather, have never been Academy favorities (the Rings, a multi-part epic, falls into a diffreent category). And Wall E undoubtedly suffered from the existence of the animation category. If you're not a baseball fan you won't get this analogy, but Mariano Rivera, the Yankee relief pitcher, has, by my lights, been the most important pitcher in baseball in more than one year. Yet he's never won the Cy Young Award given for the best pitcher because a certain number of voters feel relief pitchers have their own award (the cheesly named Rolaids relief prize). I don't like that decision, but I don't claim those voters are out to purposely ignore successful pitchers. And, though I would have nominated Wall E last year, I similarly can't claim those voters who failed to weren't acting in a principled if misguided manner.

Anyway, getting away from the fluky 2008, please cite me all the big audience hits that should have been up their for best picture. The Academy has never been shy about putting up big grossing movies if they pass a certyain credibility threshhold: The Sixth Sense, Gladiator, Erin Brockovich, Chicago, The Departed -- none of these would be confused with a Paul Thomas Anderson movie; they're mass audience entertainments. But they all got nominated because they were perceived as serious ENOUGH. The problem in recent years, as I see it, has been the mass audience's aversion to even halfway interesting/intelligent movies ($60 million in one day for Transformers 2 -- but everyone avoid Duplicity!).

And, as I said earlier in this thread, The Reader is overused as some solitary example of what the Academy likes. They also have liked, in this decade, Gosford Park, In the Bedroom, The Pianist, Lost in Translation, Good Night and Good Luck, Letters from Iwo Jima and There Will Be Blood -- none of which made the kind of money you (and Sid Ganis) seem to be suggesting they need to make to be worthy best picture candidates, but you have wanted them excluded? The Reader is, as I've said, a terrible nominee (and obviously there have been others). But a mixed bag is what you get when a heterogenous group votes. I don't think it's fair to suggest The Academy has a taste for the dreary that overwhelms all other choices.

[Big Magilla]

I tried to come up with an alternative Oscar Shouldabeens list based on ten nominees for best picture, just to see how it would look, but I couldn't do it.

Never fear, someone else already did.

http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/TenWideExperiment.html

No, that was handicapping the Oscar nominees, n his opinion of what should have been nominated.

I can easily come up with ten nominees that I think the Academy would have nominated, but there are rarely, if ever, ten films that I would personally nominate.

Take 1960, for example, the first year I actually did this. The Apartment, Sons and Lovers and Elmer Gantry from Oscar's list and Psycho and Home From the Hill make up my short list. When I try to go to ten, I can easily add Inherit the Wind and probably second the Academy's pick of The Sundowners, but not The Alamo. After that, what? I'm torn between Tunes of Glory, Wild River, The Dark at the Top of the Stairs, Conspiracy of Hearts, Hiroshima Mon Amour, The World of Apu, The Virgin Spring, General Della Rovere and The Cranes Are Flying, though not necessarily in that order.

[ITALIANO]

Ok Sabin - why not twenty nominees then? Your points (and no, sorry, I dont agree with ANY of them) would be even more valid.