John Scalzi - Is The Dark Knight Oscar Ready?
Got an e-mail from a reader:
I have a question for you about The Dark Knight (does it count as science fiction? Oh, well): It's a big hit, and the critics liked it, and people are talking about an Oscar for Heath Ledger. But what about the movie? Could it get nominated for Best Picture? Could it win?
First: Is The Dark Knight science fiction? Only glancingly; it's not science fictional the way, say, Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk are. But superhero films in general can be lumped in with science fiction/fantasy films because they share a number of relevant characteristics. For example, many (though not all) are amped-up effects-happy spectaculars, aimed at popcorn-shoveling young men. And in general -- and why I want to talk about it here -- outside the technical categories (sound and visual effects and editing), they're mostly ignored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Will The Dark Knight break through anyway and get nominated for Best Picture? Actually, I do think it's possible. And the reasons are in line with what my e-mailer has pointed out:
1. It's immensely financially successful: The Dark Knight powered past $300 million in domestic box office in ten days, and by the time you read this, it will have overtaken Iron Man as the highest grossing film of the year. You think: Big deal, lots of science fiction/fantasy films make a lot of money but don't get Best Picture nods. True. But the sf/f films that do get Oscar nods are always among the top grossing films for their year. Star Wars. Raiders of the Lost Ark. E.T. Ghost (yes, Ghost). The Sixth Sense. And all the Lord of the Rings films. All of them were either the top-grossing film of their year, or right behind at number two. The Dark Knight clears that hurdle pretty easily.
2. It's critically lauded: The Dark Knight has a 94% rating at Rotten Tomatoes, which makes it currently one of the best reviewed films of the year in any genre, much less the superhero genre. And this also matters, since if you look at all the other sf/f Best Picture nominees above, you'll note that, with the exception of Ghost, each of the films was also hugely critically lauded in its time (Ghost did OK with the critics, actually; just not to the level of E.T. or The Dark Knight). The Academy likes having the critical backup to go with the financial windfall.
3. It's got at least one Oscar-nominatable performance by a human: Yes, it matters. The largest block of the Academy is the actor's branch; if they're willing to sign off on a film for a performance, they're more likely to sign off on it for the big prize. This for me explains Ghost: the actors nominated Whoopi Goldberg for her supporting role, and while they were at it, dropped Ghost in for the last Best Picture slot on their nomination ballot. And indeed, with science fiction and fantasy, the nominatable perfomance is usually a supporting one: Alec Guinness in Star Wars, Goldberg for Ghost, Toni Collette and Haley Joel Osment for Sixth Sense and Ian McKellan for The Fellowship of the Ring. At this point, if Heath Ledger doesn't get a nod there may be riots -- not just from the fan boys, but from the actual critics.
4. The director's fame comes from outside the genre: This is one that doesn't show up in the e-mail, but I think it's worth noting nonetheless: If a director comes into science fiction (or in this case, superhero films) after being celebrated outside of it, he drags his credibility with him; i.e., it's OK to think about the film seriously because this is a serious director. Thus: George Lucas (who had been Oscar-nominated for directing American Graffiti), Steven Spielberg (Jaws), and Peter Jackson (screenplay nomination for Heavenly Creatures). Even Ghost's Jerry Zucker was better known as a comedy director (Airplane!). The Dark Knight's Christopher Nolan made his bones with the twisty, arty Memento (for which he received an Oscar screenplay nod), and burnished them with Insomnia and The Prestige. It's part of why he's getting credit now for elevating the superhero genre.
So what does The Dark Knight have going against it? Simply: It's a superhero film, and one of those has never been nominated for Best Picture before -- indeed, none has ever been seriously suggested for Best Picture before, despite the fact that (at the very least) 1978's Superman, 1989's Batman and 2004's Spider-Man 2 were all arguably financially and critically well-received enough to make a run for it. The Academy has been historically resistant to genre: It took 50 years for it to nominate a science fiction movie for Best Picture (Star Wars) and another 24 years to nominate a fantasy that didn't have singing Munchkins in it (The Fellowship of the Ring, which featured little people of a different sort). It's only been 30 years since the '78 Superman graduated superheroes out of serials and B-movies; the Academy, notoriously conservative, might still not be ready.
But I think it will be. Here's my prediction: Yes, The Dark Knight will be nominated for Best Picture, and I suspect Nolan and Ledger will also get Oscar nods and the film will also snatch tons of technical nominations.
Will it win Best Picture? No. In the end, I expect giving the Best Picture to a movie about a guy in a bat suit will still be out of the mental comfort zone of the Academy.
And besides, that would mean not giving the Best Picture Oscar to Wall-E.
Winner of the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer, John Scalzi is the author of The Rough Guide to Sci-Fi Movies as well as the novels Old Man's War and the upcoming Zoe's Tale. His column appears every Thursday.
Oh, before I forget, one other factor to consider: Technically The Dark Knight is a sequel, and that may have an impact on how some Academy members approach it. I say "technically" a sequel because all things considered, it's pretty "stand-alone"; you don't need to have seen Batman Begins to get it. And part of that has to do with the ubiquity of Batman in the culture; it's difficult to think of an adult North American who doesn't know who Batman and the Joker are, you know? In any event, another factor to toss into the pot.
I think The Dark Knight won't get an Oscar for Best Picture because, although it has great characters, there isn't a plot to write home about. No one is going to win an Oscar for this screenplay, and Best Picture needs to at least be nominated for the screenplay.
I think Heath Ledger would have been nominated even if he hadn't died; now he's got a lock on the nomination. Whether he wins will depend on films that are still in the editing suite, and I don't want to speculate on that - yet.
@PhilmWatcher---
I'm not sure exactly what counts as screenplay and plot, but The Dark Knight's plot is driven by asking fundamental questions about human nature and the human condition under democratic government. It's hard to identify great dialogue, but the story behind the screenplay is awfully good.
I just wish Danny Elfman had done the music again so that he could hop on the Bat Cape to Oscar glory.
I have a 2 year old. This means that movie night requires a babysitter. So it's not just $20 to go see the movie. It's $20 + $40 for the sitter. And while we have a sitter, we might as well go out to a decent restaurant, since this happens once in a blue moon. So lets say add another $40. Total= $100 for movie night.
All that to explain that I don't get out to see many movies. This summer I managed to see Iron Man. Last week my wife and I saw The Dark Knight. I missed out on The Hulk. I'm still trying to find a time to see Hellboy 2.
What other films are in possible competition with TDK for an Oscar?
"another 24 years to nominate a fantasy that didn't have singing Munchkins in it"
In the book the munchkins sing. A lot. Far too much, actually.
"It took 50 years for it to nominate a science fiction movie for Best Picture (Star Wars) "
The winner of Best Picture for 1956 was based on a novel by Jules Verne. It also won best adapted screenplay. It received a nomination for Best Director.
Some people don't consider it science fiction because the technology involved wasn't futuristic. But the premise of the movie was one based on technology.
TransDutch:
You mention there's such a film and you don't actually mention the title? For shame!
(It's Around the World in 80 Days, incidentally, and no, I don't think it qualifies as science fiction, since the technology involved largelyexisted at the time of the movie's setting.)
That said, I'm starting to get e-mails from people listing other movies that are specifically science fictional/fantastical nominated before the ones I mention. I say: Bring them on! I don't mind being corrected.
Impossible. Simple fact. Its not depressing enough.
Find me one best picture where a loved or main character doesn't die of something horrible. I did a term paper on "The Depression of Hollywood" how the 5 best picture categories for the last 20 years. The majority are very depressing. "Lord of the Rings" was a fluke, never to be repeated again (besides gollum did die, i loved him, so my theory holds)
Oh and BATMAN made more money in one weekend than any of the other nominees will..Most of the top 5 make less than 100 mil.
M@D:
"Most of the top 5 make less than 100 mil."
Recently this is correct, but only recently. In many years, a number of Best Picture nominees are among the top grossers of the year (I'm avoiding saying $100 million grossers since for many years no movies made that much, and these days, factoring in ticket price inflation, getting to $100 million is not the huge achievement it once was).
I also think this is a Sci-fi movie, but i wonder if you'll agree. It has a twilight Zone twist, but in a good way.
It's a Wonderful Life
recieved a best picture nod.
You say, "The Academy has been historically resistant to genre: It took 50 years for it to nominate a science fiction movie for Best Picture (Star Wars) and another 24 years to nominate a fantasy that didn't have singing Munchkins in it (The Fellowship of the Ring, which featured little people of a different sort)."
Nominated fantasies before The Fellowship of the Ring:
1937 Lost Horizon
1940 The Great Dictator (arguably alternate history)
1941 Here Comes Mr. Jordan
1947 Miracle on 34th Street
1964 Mary Poppins
1981 Raiders of the Lost Ark
1989 Field of Dreams
1990 Ghost
1991 Beauty and the Beast
1995 Babe
1999 The Sixth Sense
(and this is not even counting Biblical films)
And Dr. Strangelove (1964) and A Clockwork Orange (1971) were clearly science fiction that were nominated before Star Wars.
So now the interesting question is: Can *both* Dark Knight *and* WALL-E get a Best Picture nod?
Or would that result in the Hollywood world spinning right off its axis? Maybe there's just enough support for one SF movie to get a nod, and Dark Knight and WALL-E will split that support, thus result in no nomination at all...
- yeff
(fly, little kitten, fly!)
eleeper:
Gaaah! Point taken. And of course, I mention "Ghost" in the article. Sloppy of me. I should have qualified the mention of "Fellowship" as a straight-up fantasy -- i.e., fantasy untempered by any other genre affiliation (musical, animation, adventure, etc), which had an impact on how they were received. Certainly these other movies have significant fantasy elements, however.
Also, I'll give you Clockwork but not Dr. Strangelove. Brilliant black comedy, of course, but the central technology of the film was well in place at the time of the setting of the film. Clockwork rolls the Oscar odometer back seven years, which means it still took the Academy more than 40 years to nominate a science fiction work for Best Picture.
I believe that WALL-E and Dark Knight are both deserving of the Oscar for best picture. Neither will get it. They'll give WALL-E best animated Oscar thus allowing best pic Oscar to go to a less deserving non-genre film. Dark Knight will probably win a few technical Oscars but I do believe they will give it to Heath, they love "crazy" performances for supporting actor. They may give a Nod to Nolan but just a nod. It might even get a nod for best adapted screenplay. Now here's the thing if it gets and wins best adapted screenplay then all bets are off, because if it wins that it wins everywhere else.
It will get best pic at the Golden GLobes.
The Dark Knight isn't just a sequel to Batman Begins, but in the twisted history of the Batman movies, by featuring the battle between Batman and the Joker, it obliquely qualifies as a re-make. Or even a serial. (grin) Both would normally be strikes against a film for Oscar contention.
I suspect both TDK and WALL-E will get Best Picture nods, and agree that WALL-E will outvote TDK -- should WALL-E win, it'd be a family friendly, computer animated, SF film, which might make a few older members of the Academy explode their heads, but so be it.
It is interesting that the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey was nominated for Best Director and Best Screenplay, but not Best Picture. (Director and Picture in 1968 went to Oliver!)
Dr. Phil
"(It's Around the World in 80 Days, incidentally, and no, I don't think it qualifies as science fiction, since the technology involved largelyexisted at the time of the movie's setting.)"
The entire plot hinges upon a scientific fact (and calling direct and explicit attention to that fact). Why wouldn't that make it sf?
I wouldn't hang any definition of sf around hardware alone, since movies like The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms are suddenly excluded, as none of its technology is anything other than purely contemporary.
"I'll give you Clockwork but not Dr. Strangelove. Brilliant black comedy, of course, but the central technology of the film was well in place at the time of the setting of the film."
I think you're thinking of Fail Safe, which is purely contemporary in its technology. Dr. Strangelove's "Doomsday Shroud" was a purely fantastic technological device (in service to the satire--and a not unreasonable exaggeration of nuclear holocaust).
ScottE:
"The entire plot hinges upon a scientific fact (and calling direct and explicit attention to that fact). Why wouldn't that make it sf?"
Why would it? "Science" and "science fiction" are related but separate fields.
As for the doomsday shroud, eh. A single science fictional element briefly used for satirical purposes does not a science fiction film make, otherwise The Life of Brian (to name one) would be a science fiction film.
Personally, I think the overlooked performance in TLOTR for an Oscar nod is that of Andy Serkis, gound-breakingly amazing as Golem.
Wall-E will get pigionholed in the Animation category. Heath Ledger will get nominated for Best Supporting. Dark Knight will not get nominated.
Do you think it's possible both TDK and Wall-E can be nominated?
Honestly, I don't have a lot of faith that the Academy will nominate one of them, much less both. Sure, they gave an Oscar to one of the LotR movies. But they didn't give best picture or director nominations to Pan's Labyrinth and Guillermo Del Toro or Children of Men and Alfonso Cuaron a couple years back, and I think both those films deserved nominations in at least one of those fields. (Also the same year the Prestige came out.)
Though I will say neither of those films were financial blockbusters, so it does stick with your first point.
"Why would it? "Science" and "science fiction" are related but separate fields."
It's not like you can extract the science and still have the same story: leave out the science, and the climax is very very different.
"A single science fictional element briefly used for satirical purposes"[...]
...Which would alter the story substantially if you removed it, satire or no. Life of Brian would still be the same story if you left off the song at the end.
So. Greg Bear: Dinosaur Summer. What is it? Sf? Or not? The tech is completely contemporary. The nonavian dinosaurs (and other animals) are not only not extinct, they're also evolved quite beyond the pure transplantations you see in "lost world" adventure stories. That alone makes it reasonably sf enough, I think. You don't even have to fall back on its status as an "alternate timeline" story for it to qualify.
Or here's a grey area: Hammer Films' The Abominable Snowmen, starring Peter Cushing. Completely contemporary tech, and might even be straight adventure out of an issue of Argosy, were it not for the telepathic nature of the Yetis. Sf or not (albeit with horror elements)? Neither Yetis nor telepathy are known to exist in science, so is it still sf? Aliens aren't known either, but a story concerning a visit from aliens would hardly be considered anything else.
Sf to me was always more about concepts--advanced hardware or predicting the future is sort of optional.
ScottE:
"...Which would alter the story substantially if you removed it, satire or no."
Not really. You could remove the Doomsday Shroud from the story and you'd still have the specter of mutual assured destruction; the story could have continued without it. The Doomsday Shroud is a contrivance to pump up the drama, not an essential lynchpin of the story. Unlike Star Wars where if you don't have light speed and the Death Star, you've got no story.
Also directly to the issue of this column and the Academy, Dr. Strangelove certainly wasn't either marketed or perceived critically or commercially as a science fiction film; it was marketed/perceived as a contemporary satire on war. Star Wars could not be marketed/perceived as anything but science fiction; when the Academy members dropped it onto their nomination ballots, they had no doubt they were nominating a science fiction film.
Correction needed: The title of Peter Jackson's previously nominated film is Heavenly Creatures, rather than Beautiful Creatures, which is a different film entirely.
Other than that, I agree with you. I have an Oscar site that uses a formula with some of the points you lay out, and the formula has usually been right, in terms of nominations at least. Picking the winner is a whole different beast, of course. Brokeback Mountain losing to Crash, for instance, had nothing to do with the numbers and precedents and everything to do with bigotry.
And that may well be the case here, too. Comic books are still seen as kids' stuff in a way that other forms of SF/F have long since overcome, and I think we may well be a while off, yet, before we get over that.
There's also the possibility that the people who thought Crash was a good film - let alone the best picture of any year - are going to realise they've been wetting their pants over a film where the ostensible hero makes Dick Cheney look like a wimp. You know - the extraordinary rendition of an Asiatic criminal, the 'coercive information gathering techniques' (or torture for those of us who don't speak euphemism), and the mother of all illegal wiretaps.
While I would agree that superhero films as a genre can be considered scifi, Dark Knight is a crime film through and through. (The only scifi-ish element is that crazy Bat sonar computer thing.) And if The Departed and Godfather can win Best Picture, so should Dark Knight.
I agree it probably won't win, but should hopefully garner a bevy of nominations. If the Academy fails to nominate the year's biggest blockbuster (which is also critically acclaimed) it can expect the ratings for next year's telecast to plunge even further.
--Nick
Comic Book Movies Will Go Meta and Other Predictions From This Year's Comic Con
http://blogs.amctv.com/scifi-scanner/2008/07/predictions-from-comic-con.php
Wall-E was such an original idea that I think it will definitely get an Oscar nod--it certainly deserves one!
I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet... I'll pass judgement once I see it!
Tiria- Good eye. The Heavenly Creatures reference has been corrected. Thanks for spotting it.