So, the nominees for the various awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have been released for 2013. As usual, it's a big groan.
And so it ever has been. Any thorough film buff of course knows perfectly well that these are not the awards for the best in the year's movies. Often the best films of the year are little independent productions that very few people see. These are disqualified pretty much automatically.
It isn't though simply a matter of visibility. One needs to remember that the Academy is essentially a union and not a particularly modest one. (I know they've have you believe they are a public service - wouldn't most unions like you to think that about them?) And, the truth is, most of those independent films are created by actors and technical staff working well below union wages and even for free - and of not Academy members. Do you really think the Academy is going to honor the work of "scabs"?
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.
By Politics, with the upper case, I mean ideological commitments. Movies that make business men look corrupt, decry the evils of war, celebrate the causes of members of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to have an inside track.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
For me, the year was 1995, and in their twisted wisdom the Academy awarded best director honors to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. In the process, they rather overlooked a little flick called Pulp Fiction, which wasn't merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. But, hey, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! We can't be doing something like that? Ever since, I've found the Oscars pretty much laughable. Similar was the treatment of director Peter Jackson who, according to the code, couldn't be honored for the first - and, as it turned out, the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And on the other side of the coin, there are the elders who have to be honored, whether they've earned it or not. (Isn't that what the lifetime achievement awards are for?) So, among the most grievous results in the acting category, Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy had to go-wanting so as to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performance by Meryl Streep is deemed worthy of exception to this rule, I'm not sure: I suppose it's always important to have a token exception so they can't be accused of doing what they do.) Presumably something like such an attitude explains the exclusion of yet another gut wrenching performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Really, is there any longer any doubt that Hanks is the all time greatest film actor? It would be my vote. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming post on this topic.)
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.
And so it ever has been. Any thorough film buff of course knows perfectly well that these are not the awards for the best in the year's movies. Often the best films of the year are little independent productions that very few people see. These are disqualified pretty much automatically.
It isn't though simply a matter of visibility. One needs to remember that the Academy is essentially a union and not a particularly modest one. (I know they've have you believe they are a public service - wouldn't most unions like you to think that about them?) And, the truth is, most of those independent films are created by actors and technical staff working well below union wages and even for free - and of not Academy members. Do you really think the Academy is going to honor the work of "scabs"?
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.
By Politics, with the upper case, I mean ideological commitments. Movies that make business men look corrupt, decry the evils of war, celebrate the causes of members of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to have an inside track.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
For me, the year was 1995, and in their twisted wisdom the Academy awarded best director honors to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. In the process, they rather overlooked a little flick called Pulp Fiction, which wasn't merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. But, hey, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! We can't be doing something like that? Ever since, I've found the Oscars pretty much laughable. Similar was the treatment of director Peter Jackson who, according to the code, couldn't be honored for the first - and, as it turned out, the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And on the other side of the coin, there are the elders who have to be honored, whether they've earned it or not. (Isn't that what the lifetime achievement awards are for?) So, among the most grievous results in the acting category, Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy had to go-wanting so as to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performance by Meryl Streep is deemed worthy of exception to this rule, I'm not sure: I suppose it's always important to have a token exception so they can't be accused of doing what they do.) Presumably something like such an attitude explains the exclusion of yet another gut wrenching performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Really, is there any longer any doubt that Hanks is the all time greatest film actor? It would be my vote. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming post on this topic.)
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 film and television commentary. If you're a fan of Mad Men, you won't want to miss his sensational 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