February 5, 2003
The Last Awards Column … Until The Next
..........................................................................................
So, we’re heading into the home stretch.
Next Tuesday before the crack of dawn, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences president Frank Pierson and (as of this writing) a to-be-announced former Oscar actress winner, will mount the stage at the Wilshire headquarters and announce the nominees in 10 Academy Award categories. Forty days later the world will know the outcome.
Several thoughts and emotions run through me as I ponder the occasion of the announcements. However, eager anticipation is not among them.
For close to a decade the Oscars have increasingly become the anti-climax of the awards season. By the time the envelope is opened and the presenter fills in the blank following “and the Oscar goes to …,” we have been treated to more than 100 other award ceremonies that embrace critic organizations, guilds, educational organizations and myriad other professional and popular outlets. There is no unanimity in the films and individuals selected as the best or, for that matter, in the panels who select those to be honored.
In some instances fewer than 100 people choose the winners; in others thousands cast ballots and, in the case of the Oscars, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 eligible voting members. All awards are governed by such factors as who is among the voters, what have they seen and how are they are effected by outside influences. Those outside influences might be spouses, friends or emissaries for possible honorees. Or, what determines one’s choice may be an article read, a personal passion or something more banal relating to health, a good meal digesting during the screening or one’s uncomfortable seat in the theater.
Having imbibed in the practice of writing about personal favorites of a particular year, I know that some choices are evanescent. Re-addressing the list a week, a year or a decade later would render, minimally, a slightly altered slate. It’s also a fact that my personal preferences contribute only so much when I toss them out for consideration as a member of a critics group. All choices made by award giving organizations by experience, methodology and definition are compromises. In pristine lab environments they will render a roster of winners that reflect the zeitgeist of the moment. Unadulterated climes are increasingly hard to find.
The point that one inexorably edges toward is that apart from one’s own decisions, all other award giving choices should probably be viewed with suspicion. It’s not that any group or organization is engaged in nefarious activity. Simply that the manner in which all collective awards are determined casts a shadow on the process.
Just for fun let’s look at two recent Oscar years - 1976 and 1980. Let’s also make the big assumption that the five films nominated were the best movies of those years and do our best to clear the mind of what film actually took home the golden statuette. The slate for best picture in 1976 was comprised of All the President’s Men, Bound for Glory, Network, Rocky and Taxi Driver. Of course, in the heat of the moment, it’s tough to assess whether a film will age well, if that’s even part of the criteria one employs. But on that basis, one probably has to wrestle chiefly with All the President’s Men, Network and Taxi Driver. My vote would be cast for Network.
The winner back in 1976, Rocky, has pretty much lost its luster as a result of four subsequent movies that have squandered the Italian Stallion’s initial appeal.
The choices in 1980 were: Coal Miner’s Daughter, The Elephant Man, Ordinary People, Raging Bull and Tess. Were the voting done today, my guess is that Raging Bull would prevail, though my choice would be The Elephant Man. However, two decades ago, the prevailing zeitgeist favored Ordinary People.
The best news in recent years has been that the Academy will move up the Oscar show date a month. By sheer dint of time, some of the existing award shows will be squeezed out of the picture or have to double up dates. Though the season will be abbreviated, it will not make the prizes any more homogeneous. Decades will pass and people will still reflect back, scratch their collective head and say: “what were they thinking?”
Unfortunately, or not, awards are selected by human beings who, based on numerous studies, have been shown to be fallible. Shakespeare, a hit playwright in 1678, was succeeded in reputation and popularity by Christopher Marlowe a hundred years later but has enjoyed a popular vogue in the past century. Cecil B. DeMille received the Academy’s Thalberg Award in 1956 but who reruns his movies today?
One can say with confidence that the five best movies released in 2002 will not comprise Oscar’s short list next Tuesday. Some of the best films from last year are not eligible, while others were not seen by a sufficient number of Academy members to favor their inclusion. It’s also true by the very composition of the group that certain films have advantages just as other films will have a leg up among critics groups, to state the obvious. For those not engaged in the selection process, the weight of any award boils down to the credibility of who determines it and how closely it reflects ones tastes.
Which brings us to the over-riding feeling I have toward the Oscar announcements: dread. Sure it’s just a list of nominees, but it’s not just any list. It’s the word that has come down from on high, determined by the people representing the American film industry. Its membership is responsible for Schindler’s List, The Godfather and My Left Foot and part of us wants to believe their selections are determined by the loftiest of considerations.
Now, I’ve met Academy members (I will not reveal that I married one) - even Charlton Heston - and they are not gods. In addition to the aforementioned films, these are the same people who toiled on Ace Ventura and Deuce Bigelow. Some, I dare to say, have been guilty of bad judgment on (rare) occasion.
They are human beings and susceptible to cold viruses and outside influences. They do not exist in a bubble. They have opinions and have friends and relations with strong viewpoints. Some are aware of a movie’s success, its critical reputation and the hype attendant as those with the most to gain from nominations and honors infect our lives with buzz, spin and unsupportable claims.
In a perfect world, everyone would be able to separate the meat from the dross. However, I understand that when one is bombarded with all manner of hyperbole, it’s near impossible to sift through it. And, if I were cynical, I might believe that when an untruth is repeated often enough, some (but not Oscar members) would believe its veracity.
This season alone I’ve heard mention that several contenders are the favorite of Oscar members. My understanding is that there can only be one absolute favorite, so someone has been given incorrect information. It would be unthinkable to imagine that someone would purposely tell a lie. After all what would he gain, money? ego gratification?
I’ve also heard that another possible candidate is “our greatest living filmmaker.” However, the last time I checked the list, neither Ingmar Bergman nor even Robert Altman made films in 2002. Now, I’m not prone to superlatives when it comes to particular movies or individuals and certainly, as indicated earlier, believe some cinematic wines improve with time. The Oscar race is just that, a race in which tactics of both skill and deception determine nominees and winners. It’s unscientific and largely inappropriate.
A number of years back I attended an evening with the distinguished Hungarian filmmaker Istvan Szabo and actor Klaus Maria Brandauer who, at the time, were nominated in Oscar’s foreign-language category for Colonel Redl. During the question and answer session, the duo - who had won an Oscar for Mephisto - were asked their feelings about award competition. Szabo jumped in immediately, decrying the process as “inappropriate,” “tortuous” and “irrelevant.” He paused and sighed and added that, all things considered, he still preferred to be part of the competition and dialogue and not sitting on the sidelines
Part of me applauds the notion of honoring individuals and films for their art and craft and wishes that the razzle dazzle weren’t such a major part of the race. There is, after all, no official category for best campaign. I’ve been run over by a steamroller of “for your consideration” ads, DVDs, strategic promotional pieces masquerading as reportage and subliminal messages I cannot begin to comprehend. It has me convinced that Antwone Fisher and Far from Heaven are out of the running for best picture and that the slate will be comprised of About Schmidt, Chicago, The Hours, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers and The Pianist. While I admire several of these films and feel they should be honored, I resent the manipulation and chicanery some feel is necessary to get to this point.
I know there has to be a better way … not a perfect one. If I were organizing the Oscars, I’d scrap the current final ballot and instead organize very good private dinners for the five nominees in which they could interact, question and talk about process. The dinners would be recorded and used for educational purposes and at the end of the evening each of the finalists would be asked to vote for someone other than him or herself to determine the winner in the category. It isn’t any more scientific and has no better chance of surviving the test of time than the present process but the pressure and scrutiny is removed and everyone gets seconds if they so desire.
© 2002. Movie City News. All Rights Reserved.
