..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

The Trouble With Oscar

When Louis B. Mayer spearheaded efforts to create an organization representing the finer aspects of the American film industry eight decades ago his intentions weren't wholly altruistic. The nabobs of Hollywood had been rocked by drug and sex scandals and the press had been unsparing in painting a picture of a modern Gomorrah that was quickly embraced by the public.

In an appropriate biblical response, Mayer and the others gambled that if they could present 10 or more studio movies that embodied quality, artistry and moral values the town would be spared. In its first year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had such timeless classics as Sunrise, Wings, The Crowd, The Circus, The Last Command and The Jazz Singer in competition and the other crowds were placated.

The announcement, way too early in the morning, of the Academy Award slate of nominees for the year 2004 provides a strong impression that if the same devil's bargain were struck today, Hollywood would be consumed in a fireball.

There's no argument and very little conspicuous omission in regard to the quality of the selections. However, in general, their relationship to the mainstream American film industry is at best tangential. The sort of social dramas and epic stories that used to be a staple of the major companies have been ceded to others while Hollywood has cornered the market for popular and often mindless fare whether it be inane comedies, sloppily constructed thrillers or comic strip superheroes. And as they used to say at Miracle Pictures: If it's a good film, it's a Miracle.

This year's best pictures include The Aviator, a Howard Hughes biography that was initially developed at a studio, put into turnaround and finally realized when London-based Initial Entertainment put up the majority of the budget. Warner Bros. then agreed to pick up domestic rights but then decided it had too many prestige films to handle at the close of the year and struck a deal with Miramax to handle distribution chores.

Warner Bros. executives likely expected to reap a treasure chest of Oscar nominations for The Phantom of the Opera, The Polar Express and Alexander. The last title didn't turn out quite as expected and the other two only found favor in technical categories. All three also happened to be financial co-ventures. The film folk in Burbank are taking credit for Million Dollar Baby that was co-ventured with Lakeshore, an independent production company. The studio's involvement, as described by Eastwood partisans, seemed to be largely propelled by embarrassment. There was no demonstrable interest in the project at Warners, though Eastwood has enriched the company's bottom line by billions for 30 years and heaped them with glory and gelt as recently as last year with Mystic River. The prior stewardship of Bob Daley and Terry Semel would likely have weighed the picture's modest price tag against a fruitful relationship and not balked at the deal, but the current co-chairmen only agreed to participate when Lakeshore stepped up, knowing Paramount (where Lakeshore resides) would otherwise pick up the slack.

Similarly, Finding Neverland was propelled by overseas investment and Ray at first had to be bankrolled by another American independent. It was only after everything was in place that Universal came aboard, albeit in a very significant fashion worldwide. So, the only nominee wholly financed with studio money is Sideways and ,it was greenlit through the auspices of Fox's specialized division Searchlight.

In what's considered the Oscar's major categories - acting, directing, writing and picture - the only film completely underwritten by a primary studio label is Closer. There's an argument for inclusion for Collateral - co-ventured by Paramount and major but not a studio DreamWorks - and lots of representation from films acquired and sometimes even bankrolled by the sundry classics divisions of the majors. In the history of the event this is an all-time low and if not a scandal, a shameful situation.

A great deal has been written (by myself included) about various recent plights confronted by AMPAS. Faltering ratings for the telecast prompted moving the event from Monday to Sunday night. While the shift was an enormous boost in smoothing physical headaches like traffic that have plagued it historically, it did not result in more than a flutter in viewship.

So, if that wasn't the problem, perhaps it was the timing. Since May 29, 1929 when the first Academy Awards were doled out, a lot of imitators and wannabees have come onto the scene and virtually every last one hands out honors in advance of the Oscars. The organization's board finally came to the conclusion that the mother of all film prizes now appeared to be an anti-climax and just last year pushed up its broadcast by a month.

The effect of the move, again, appears to have had little effect on the television audience. The awards continue to be familiar and all those others, from Globes to People's Choice, have simply been crowded into an abbreviated time frame.

I'm not going to diminish the déjà vu quality that hangs over the Oscars. Frankly, I don't know how you can get around it short of going back to a calendar that overlaps years (July 1 through June 30 for instance). There's no obvious method of stepping up the nomination and voting process and accommodating a voting membership edging up to 6,000.

However, I believe there are far greater problems the Academy must confront if its hopes to remain relevant and vital. The relative absence of mainstream Hollywood movies is by far the single most crippling aspect in respect to the organization's future. Virtually every other problem it faces trickles down from this circumstance.

The vast majority of AMPAS members work for or with the majors. The Academy Awards are supposed to be a celebration of their efforts, but certainly since 1996 there's been little for which they might have a personal rooting interest. Back in 1996 the sole studio picture vying for top prize was Jerry Maguire and, since then, there have only been three years where films by the majors were dominant in the best picture category.

To paraphrase Apollo 13: Hollywood, we have a problem.

There's an obvious disconnect when the ultimate honor that the American film industry can bestow is annually awarded to movies initiated outside a studio infrastructure - even if they involve mainstream actors, directors and writers. One has to wonder what sort of careers the likes of John Ford, Billy Wilder, William Wyler, Fred Zinnemann, George Stevens and dozens of other greats from bygone eras would have had in the current creative environment. The answer is too stomach wrenching to dwell upon.

If there's no possibility of interesting the studios to make the occasional film of ambition, then perhaps the Oscars should really narrow its focus to the popular movies that dominate the major's release schedule. If the awards were determined by box office, the upcoming ceremonies would shine the spotlight on Shrek 2, Spider-Man 2, Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban, The Incredibles and The Day After Tomorrow. And maybe that's not the worst of solutions.

There's a mighty big country that lies between Los Angeles and New York City and most of its residents would be hard pressed to identify Imelda Staunton and don't really know Clive Owen, Virginia Madsen or Don Cheadle by name. But they do know all the blockbusters, and it might be of some interest for them to tune in a show that honors the achievements of films that slavishly court their money.

It goes hand in glove that the truly beloved stars for the average movie goer - given current circumstances - have little reason to attend the Oscars for other than purposes of window dressing. That would change radically if the best actor nominees were to include Matt Damon (The Bourne Supremacy), Nicolas Cage (National Treasure), Will Smith (I, Robot), Brad Pitt (Troy) and Adam Sandler (50 First Dates). Naysayers are apt to say that the People's Choice and MTV awards already serve that function, but there are dozens of other precursors (or harbingers) to the Academy Awards that emulate the event in its present manifestation so why shouldn't AMPAS opt to court the lowest common denominator much in the manner that's been evolved by the studios.

The proposition shouldn't be considered simply as cavalier or cynical. There's plenty of room to trumpet the true artistic achievements of American cinema of every stripe and additionally towering work regardless of its origin. That's clearly the bailiwick of groups that include the Los Angeles and New York Film critics.

It would also be a tremendous opportunity for the Independent Spirit Awards that presently stand in the dark shadow of the Academy in great part because there's so much overlap between its nominees and those selected by Oscar voters. In the new configuration duplication wouldn't be a problem

Another group that could possible benefit is the American Film Institute that has heretofore failed at establishing much of a profile or a television adjunct for its annual list of the best American movies. Just like Louis B. Mayer, it strives to find 10 good U.S. films that justify the preponderance of mediocrity. The AFI also has a degree of credibility as a result of operating a school, co-coordinating restoration of classic films, running a variety of film series and handing out an award for career achievement on an annual basis. Its mandate, at least superficially, would appear closer to the intent of the original Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and befitting how the industry has changed.

- by Leonard Klady