But wait, you say, aren’t some viewers actually scared away from movies that are nominated for Oscars? Don’t certain audiences consider the Oscars and other awards to be indicators that a movie is “not fun” (unless those awards are for sound, visual effects, or the like)? Absolutely. Surveys have shown that teenage boys go to the movies more than any other demographic. If you doubt this figure, then why are ten of the eleven most popular movies of 2002 about men who use guns, magic, or technology to blow things up (“Spider-Man," “Harry Potter,” “Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones,” “Men in Black II,” "The Two Towers," and “Die Another Day”), men who are sexual adventurers (“Austin Powers,” “Catch Me If You Can,” and “Die Another Day,” again), men who beat aliens with baseball bats (“Signs”), or male bonding (“Ice Age”)? And I’m sure the ladies in the audiences just LOVED seeing Natalie Portman get her shirt torn in “Star Wars,” LOVED watching Lara Flynn-Boyle in her undies in “Men in Black II,” LOVED rain soaking Kirsten Dunst’s top in “Spider-Man,” LOVED Halle Berry coming out of the ocean in a bikini in “Die Another Day,” and ADORED watching Britney Spears shoot bullets out of her chest in “Austin Powers.” Are the spendthrift boys who helped to make these movies hits really going to mull over renting “The Hours” or “Far From Heaven,” and then change their minds abruptly when they notice that it was nominated for nine Oscars in such hum-drum categories as acting, writing, and art direction? It strikes me as rare that Oscars would scare away anyone who isn’t about to see a movie anyway.
3) Artistry
Yes, contrary to everything I just said, Oscar voters do pick films they feel are great, moving, well-made, important, or whatever. Yes, they tend to favor costume epics, stories that cover years and generations, individuals overcoming adversity, vast cinematography and beautiful locations, and acting filled with tics and mannerisms. They are attracted to films with easily discernable meanings, that can be examined like an English lit paper, as opposed to those whose greatness lies in hits to the subconscious to which we’d rather not admit (“Psycho,” for instance, and every other Hitchcock movie in which we find ourselves siding with the maniac). They tend to look down on “fluff,” even if the fluff is spectacularly well-made (“Raiders of the Lost Ark” and the original “Star Wars” trilogy are probably the most pure fun I’ve ever had in any movie). But the voters do follow their hearts as well as their pocketbooks. Their tastes may not always be yours, but it’s not all about popularity or money.
So what are the results of this three-pronged approach to evaluating greatness? Take another look at those films that won Best Picture and Best Director for the last ten years. It’s a pretty good list, with “Titanic” the only movie on it I don’t like. But, besides “Schindler’s List,” are any of these really the best picture of that year? There are probably better movies that were overlooked: I’d go with “Memento” or “In the Bedroom” instead of “A Beautiful Mind,” “Traffic” instead of “Gladiator,” “The Thin Red Line” instead of “Shakespeare in Love,” “L.A. Confidential” instead of “Titanic,” “Fargo instead of “The English Patient,” and “Pulp Fiction” instead of “Forrest Gump.” But it is what it is: one group trying to strike a balance between what’s best and what’s the most popular.
Past Oscar winners and nominees are a good judge of what trends go in and out of fashion over the years, and a good reminder that what is popular today may not be popular tomorrow. “2001: A Space Odyssey” did not beat “Oliver!” for Best Picture; “Dr. Strangelove” did not beat “My Fair Lady;” “The Third Man” did not beat “All the King’s Men;” “Psycho” did not beat “The Apartment;” “The Graduate” lost to “In the Heat of the Night;” “Raiders of the Lost Ark” lost to “Chariots of Fire;” “E.T.” lost to “Ghandi;” “Apocalypse Now” to “Kramer vs. Kramer;” “Goodfellas” to “Dances With Wolves;” “Taxi Driver” to “Rocky;” “Raging Bull” to “Ordinary People;” and “Citizen Kane” lost to “How Green Was My Valley.” Great movies sometimes lose to less great movies, or to just very good ones.
Great movies sometimes lose to other great movies. I don’t envy those who had to choose between “Annie Hall” and “Star Wars;” “Chinatown” and “The Godfather Part II;” “All About Eve” and “Sunset Boulevard;” “The Deer Hunter” and “Days of Heaven;” “Ben-Hur” and “North by Northwest;” and “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” “Barry Lyndon,” “Jaws,” and “Dog Day Afternoon” all in one year.
But sometimes this crazy matrix on how to pick a winner does work and the Academy can be lauded for choosing films that have, and probably will, stand the test of time. “The Godfather,” “Lawrence of Arabia,” “Casablanca,” “Gone with the Wind,” “Bridge on the River Kwai,” “The Sting,” and “Amadeus” are just a few of the good choices made by the Academy.
So when your favorite movie of the year didn’t even get nominated, or when your favorite nominee doesn’t win, don’t fret. Maybe time will be on your side and you’ll start noticing people who are ashamed that they saw “Titanic” nine times. Or maybe time will teach you a lesson and, after watching whatever won a few more times, you can say to yourself “that was actually pretty good.” And that’s basically what the Oscars are: you can’t convince everyone that one movie is the best film of the year, but you can convince a lot of people that it’s a pretty good one.
March 19th, 2003
Page one of "Why should we care what the Oscars think?
Back to home.