Have the Oscars Become Too Artsy? (And Is It a Buzz Kill?)
The Academy snubbed mass-appeal films like Zodiac, American Gangster, and Knocked Up this year in favor of artistic-minded efforts like Atonement, There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. But if audience favorites are ignored by the Oscars will the Oscars be ignored by audiences? "If studios surrender giving awards to
wonderful artists in big theatrical movies, it will not be a good
thing," say Shootout co-host Peter Guber.
Guber isn't knocking arty films. This year's artistic nominees merit the Academy's consideration, and Guber thinks the upwelling of talent represented by the movies is "wonderful." Shootout co-host Peter Bart says he admires filmmakers willing to "work against the system."
"But what about the big films?" asks Guber. "What about Russell Crowe in American Gangster? Why wasn't he been recognized? ... Is there a backlash?"
Zodiac, says Bart, was "a beautifully shot picture, but no one mentions it. It's like it disappeared into some maw."
What's happening? So-called independent or specialty films are now owned and financed by the major studios, explains Guber. While the studios can't squeeze much more out of the box office from big successes like Pirates of the Caribbean 3 or Spider-Man 3, the major studios think awards will help them earn more from their smaller grossing independent pictures.
Bart disagrees. "I don't think it has anything to do with a strategy or the studios," he muses. "There's something in the ether. People really are responding more to...art pictures." Appearing in a major film will invoke an Oscar snub, says Bart. (Both Bart and Guber agree Juno may be a cross-over film, both independent in spirit and mass in appeal. Notes Guber, "It's the only film that had an upbeat ending.")
The Oscars could be the loser. "The audience for the Oscars is continuing to crash," says Bart. "And Crash indeed prompted the first Oscar crash." If you compare the audience for the Oscars the year Titanic won to the year Crash won, the Titanic audience was 42% higher. Bart wonders if advertisers will still be willing to pay a premium ($1.7 million for a 30 second spot in 2008) for ads during the Oscars if the audience dwindles.
As the interest level in nominated films goes down, so will movie buzz, fears Guber.
He suggests the Oscars reorganize themselves. Major film festivals have introduced the audience award, says Bart, and maybe the Oscars should consider that.
"At the end of the day...most of the [artsy] films will end up in the trash bin of film history," says Guber.
Comments open below. Go to our Talk section to start your own discussion.
I agree the current crop of flicks are downers. The artists should be congratulated for their vision - but it's their party. Where is the party to celebrate the films that truly resonated with the people? Isn't it funny that suddenly capitalism can sound almost Marxist?
The thing to remember here is that the Academy is a private club and every year they have a public function when they give awards to their members. The choices for Oscar often have nothing to do with what the public likes or wants. It's not about the public. Witness Art Carney's "Best Actor" award for just one example.
I have gone to see more movies in first run this year, than any time in recent memory. This will be the first Oscar's I've watched in a great many years. The reason for both is the same. Independent filmmakers are making films that are excellent.
The public at large may really enjoy lots of explosions, CGI effects, over-the-top acting, and formulaic plots. But I believe there is a groundswell of people out here like myself that would much rather see strong acting carry the day over computer effects. That would rather see great cinematography over sight gags. And I think at least some in Hollywood are beginning to see that there is a more astute audience out here that doesn't have to be spoonfed the plot all through the film.
I saw both There Will be Blood and No Country for Old men this weekend, and will catch Atonement this week coming. As long as movies of this caliber continue to come to the theatre, I'll support them and the people who produce them.
Kudos to the academy for finally saying that a movie costing $100M isn't automatically better than one costing $15M.
"But if audience favorites are ignored by the Oscars will the Oscars be ignored by audiences?" implies that widespread, aggressive advertising and distribution equals popular and Oscar-worthy. People looking for a date-night activity or simple entertainment to pass the time will go see whatever is at the theater - which is ultimately decided by the powerful studio distribution network. People looking for superior art will seek out "There will Be Blood" or "Atonement" in spite of the lack of studio support.
The Academy has always sought to recognize artistic accomplishment with the Oscars. It's their show, and it's worked (more or less) throughout the Academy's history, "Kramer vs Kramer" beating "Apocalypse Now" notwithstanding.
Want to recognize popular, lowest-common-denominator movies? The MTV Awards is right up your alley.
I'm not sure I can agree with what appears to be Bob's analysis: ie., "people will go see whatever the studios tell them to go see." The box office is littered with too many big budget, heavily marketed films that quickly perished for that to be true. For a movie to do $100 million at the box office, viewers must want to see it and when they see it in such large numbers--it says something about that film's appeal. Which gets us back to the point of Bart and Guber... There Will Be Blood, et al, deserve Oscar attention and their directors are to be commended. But are the Oscars leaving out equally worthy films that were favored by audiences? And if they are -- what will be the impact of that?
@Bob Loblaw: (Great name by the way) I have to echo Mac's sentiment. Look at the recent crop of Lord of the Rings fantasy-esque movies. They're all pretty much the same--Golden Compass, Spiderwick, Narnia, who cares?? New Line spent $200 million on Golden Compass. For comparison, the LOTR movies only cost $125 mil apiece.
The word on high at New Line was that if the movie didn't pull in at least $40 million opening weekend every producer who worked on it would get canned. Opening weeked was something like $27.5 million.
The studios can't make us see crap, no matter how much they spend on it. And I'm sure there are a few former New Line producers that can attest to that fact.