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.
Nothing new about that, though. Film buffs hardly need to be explained that the Oscar nominees shouldn't be confused with the best moves of the year. In fact, in truth, the actual best of the year are frequently obscure independent productions that are seen by a pretty small audience. That's just a fact of life. Such films won't be making the Academy's cut.
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"?
However, even within that narrow range of films that do qualify for the Oscars, they almost always get it wrong. There are a number of reasons for this. The two main reasons might be identified as Politics and politics.
By Politics, using the upper case, I'm pointing to the ideological commitments that form the attitudes of most members of the Academy. These are attitudes not unexpected among union members. Those movies that depict capitalists and business men in a bad light, those that rail against the evils of war (unless of course the war is patriotic and "just"), those that depict the struggle of supposedly oppressed minorities and of course those with inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to be front-runners.
Using the lower case, politics, is intended to invoke the secret code that guides the Academy choices. One of these rules is that one cannot win too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category). One has to prove themselves - though it is an award for best performance not best career. Like numerous other Oscar watchers I had my moment of complete exasperation when I realized I'd had enough and could not any longer take it seriously.
For me, that was in 1995 when they gave the best director award to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. After all, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! Pulp Fiction wasn't just the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. That was just laughable. But it happens all the time. A similar thing happened when Peter Jackson apparently couldn't be given the director's award for the first - as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings. No, he had to wait.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over 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.)
All of which leads me to conclude that when another year goes by and my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or whatever year) fails to be represented by the stately old Academy, I know I can rest easy. Somewhere the commitment to integrity and art in movies remains. And it sure ain't on Hollywood Boulevard.
Nothing new about that, though. Film buffs hardly need to be explained that the Oscar nominees shouldn't be confused with the best moves of the year. In fact, in truth, the actual best of the year are frequently obscure independent productions that are seen by a pretty small audience. That's just a fact of life. Such films won't be making the Academy's cut.
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"?
However, even within that narrow range of films that do qualify for the Oscars, they almost always get it wrong. There are a number of reasons for this. The two main reasons might be identified as Politics and politics.
By Politics, using the upper case, I'm pointing to the ideological commitments that form the attitudes of most members of the Academy. These are attitudes not unexpected among union members. Those movies that depict capitalists and business men in a bad light, those that rail against the evils of war (unless of course the war is patriotic and "just"), those that depict the struggle of supposedly oppressed minorities and of course those with inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always going to be front-runners.
Using the lower case, politics, is intended to invoke the secret code that guides the Academy choices. One of these rules is that one cannot win too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category). One has to prove themselves - though it is an award for best performance not best career. Like numerous other Oscar watchers I had my moment of complete exasperation when I realized I'd had enough and could not any longer take it seriously.
For me, that was in 1995 when they gave the best director award to Zemeckis for Forrest Gump. After all, it was Quentin Tarrantino's first nomination! Pulp Fiction wasn't just the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year. It was arguably the best of the previous decade. That was just laughable. But it happens all the time. A similar thing happened when Peter Jackson apparently couldn't be given the director's award for the first - as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings. No, he had to wait.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over 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.)
All of which leads me to conclude that when another year goes by and my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or whatever year) fails to be represented by the stately old Academy, I know I can rest easy. Somewhere the commitment to integrity and art in movies remains. And it sure ain't on 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 piece 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!
