Rough and tumble
After every major awards show, year after year, the same thought is on everyone's mind: "Good for this or that film (or this or that creative player) for winning -- the voters have spoken. But my God, the final decisions in some respects were so clueless, so behind-the-curve, so old-farty, so off-on-their-own-island."
I know that Children of Men, United 93, Paul Greengrass, The Lives of Others, Volver and Penelope Cruz (to name but a few) are probably going to get the shaft on Oscar nomination day (1.23), and that's okay -- not the end of the world. It's just that they could all use the extra attention that nominations always bestow. And it just doesn't feel right.
I have a theoretical equation in mind. How much more on-target would the Oscar show be if, say, the blue-hairs who haven't really been in the game for the last 15 or 20 or 30 years had, let's say, half a vote, and the active members -- people caught up in the rough-and-tumble of the present tense, people half-familiar with cyber-space, etc. -- kept their full votes?
Can't happen, won't happen....but the unhip, out-of-touch element is definitely sapping the vitality of the enterprise. Deadwood almost always gets purged in other groups and organizations -- why not the Academy?
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on January 16, 2007 at 10:16 AM
comment #1
Mike Schaefer
says ...
Didn't the Academy actually "trim the deadwood" about thirty years ago -- 1977 -- and didn't that supposedly help Annie Hall win Best Picture? No reason why they can't do it again.
Posted by Mike Schaefer
at January 16, 2007 10:59 AM
comment #2
Craptastic
says ...
I can't believe it but I actually agree with something that is coming out of Wells' poison fingers. Best idea anyone's had in Hollywood since Being John M.
Anyone else notice Ben Stiller coming off like a complete fucking ass? Dissing "Rocky" and then plugging his own movie? Hope Larry David pokes him in the eye again. Asshole.
Posted by Craptastic
at January 16, 2007 11:05 AM
comment #3
VedaPierce
says ...
Aren't the 'blue-haired' Academy members nowadays comprised of people like Warren Beatty, Goldie Hawn, Jane Fonda, and Jack Nicholson? It's not like Helen Hayes and Art Carney are still casting ballots.
Are we also to assume that younger and supposedly more culturally aware members like Mira Sorvino and Cuba Gooding Jr. have superior taste than the aforementioned?
Posted by VedaPierce
at January 16, 2007 11:38 AM
comment #4
Movie fan09
says ...
do they still have the mail in vote?
I remember reading somewhere that the mail-in vote was the ultimate reason why the winners have been so crappy.
I always thought it would be better(if they already have this set up, please excuse my ignorance)if they showed the nominated films at the academy or had some sort of voting kiosk there at the academy for people to vote.
you do vote smarter when you can't be lazy.
I know I do.
Posted by Movie fan09
at January 16, 2007 11:54 AM
comment #5
Craptastic
says ...
alfred,
most assistants in hollywood fill out the ballots for the members
Posted by Craptastic
at January 16, 2007 11:58 AM
comment #6
gruver1
says ...
Wells to VedaPierce: No, I'm not talking about Warren Beatty, Goldie Hawn, Jane Fonda, and Jack Nicholson. These four are working, active, plugging away and in the game. I'm talking about doddering sorts who aren't really doing much.
Posted by gruver1
at January 16, 2007 11:59 AM
comment #7
JD
says ...
This is only a good strategy for making the Oscar winners closer to your taste... or mine... or any other Oscar basher. But that's not what the Oscars are about. The Oscars are about Hollywood's ideal of itself, a fantasy world in which all the greatest directors are actors and the best movies are totally stale and take no chances. People who embrace this philosophy have won Oscars in the past and they are entitled to keep this bland imperative alive. That's what the Oscars are. I don't know why anyone wants the Oscars to become the NYFCC awards. They mean totally different things. It's also worth noting that the last two best picture winners were among Jeff's favorite films of their respective years, suggesting that his tastes and the Oscars' tastes are not as far removed as he might believe. They're not going to literally allow you to hand-pick every nominee, Jeff, but you should be a lot happier with the current system than the rest of us.
Posted by JD
at January 16, 2007 12:01 PM
comment #8
ArchiveGuy
says ...
If Cruz is going to get shafted, who, pray tell is going to get nominated instead? Beyonce? The pickings are pretty slim in the Actress field and I can't, for the life of me, think of anyone in a good enough position to take her place.
Posted by ArchiveGuy
at January 16, 2007 12:50 PM
comment #9
T. S. Idiot
says ...
Cruz easily gives the best female 2006 performance I've seen. Mirren is excellent at repression, but give me Penny C. embracing life (and death).
Posted by T. S. Idiot
at January 16, 2007 1:02 PM
comment #10
Movie fan09
says ...
crap-
yea...that's what I heard too.
so why even bother trying to have high hopes?
Posted by Movie fan09
at January 16, 2007 1:07 PM
comment #11
dre
says ...
I think the key point is the blue hairs are soft and (for the most part) don't respect (enough) the bold, riskier films. Then again, there was probably only one decade where Hollywood did honor films of that ilk.
There's a large number of voices willing to award the hipper, more relevent, exciting and interesting talents like Del Toro, Greengrass, Aronofsky, Cuaron and - I would argue this year - Chris Nolan.
In an ideal world, the Oscars would embrace the quirky, the commercial, the artistic, the transcendent. The peers should be the ones to vote, but there needs to be some active participation within the community for your vote to count. The trick is figuring it out.
Posted by dre
at January 16, 2007 1:19 PM
comment #12
VedaPierce
says ...
Mirren deserves the Oscar and the unprecedented consenus she's achieved regarding the greatness of her performance makes any attempt at fomenting a backlash rather pathetic. Taking nothing away from Cruz, it will be a relief to finally see this award go to an actress who isn't just a pretty girl exceeding modest expectations.
Posted by VedaPierce
at January 16, 2007 1:23 PM
comment #13
bellepoitrine
says ...
The 85 wine stewards and valet parkers in the HFPA love foreigners, and they love anointing the new, so nothing they did last night was a surprise, except their vote for Scorsese, which falls under "Memo to the Academy" behavior.
Posted by bellepoitrine
at January 16, 2007 1:44 PM