Bring Back the Old Days

email this story
read comments (29)
post a comment

During a taping with The Envelope's Tom O'Neil during yesterday's BAFTA awards brunch on the UCLA campus, I was asked what changes I'd make if I were King of the Oscars and could do absolutely anything. Sensing an opportunity for egregious attitude, I repeated my age-old gripe about the AMPAS's Oscar voting process being degraded by too many deadwood voters. I said that my first priority would be to take steps to weed them out.

There are, thank God, exceptions to every rule and definition, but the deadwoods, most of whom are 70 or older, tend to measure new films by the aesthetic standards of 30 or 40 years ago (or even farther back in the calendar), and don't seem to truly absorb and grapple with the "all" of a film as much as process it by the criteria of days past and -- I'm trying not to put this too harshly -- a certain hardening of the aesthetic arteries.

(Two exceptions would be the Real Geezer costars Lorenzo Semple, Jr. and Marcia Nasatir -- a couple of tough nuts who know what they know, feel what they feel and don't mince words.)

Minutes before I had listened to Pete Hammond talk about how many of the older rank-and-file Academy members may not have even seen the major contenders of '07 (There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Away From Her, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, I'm Not There) because of not wanting to sit through a film they figured would be too violent or complex or depressing due to depictions of paralysis or Alzheimer's disease. These are people who, according to local legend, will then turn to their friends (who may not have seen the films either for the same reasons) for guidance, or take the word of their staffs or their gardeners or whomever. It's ridiculous and disrespectful.

AMPAS headquarters on Wilshire Blvd.

So I said, only half-jokingly, that the best way to deal with the deadwoods was to purge them in the way that Josef Stalin used to 86 apparatchiks in the Russian Communist government of the 1920s, '30s, '40s and early '50s.

Russian Communism lasted for 74 years and thank goodness it's gone, but you have to extend a certain grudging respect to the old Russian commies for knowing how to get rid of undesirables. If Uncle Joe wanted a guy gone, his henchmen didn't mess around. They'd drive the guy out to his dacha in the middle of the night and that would be that. I'm not suggesting that any kind of brutality should be introduced in Academy procedures, but I do feel that the concept of "purging" the members who just don't get it (and are thereby dragging down the integrity of the Oscars) should be considered. Seriously.

Let's face it -- at a certain point in your autumnal flesh-sagging years you start measuring everything you see and hear by the somewhat romanticized (or at least hazy) memories of your shining youth. You're not part of the here-and-now the way you used to be, and your likes and dislikes tend to reflect this. Not every person over 70 is a deadwooder (I sure as hell won't be when I get there), but a certain percentage of this demographic, let's face it, qualifies.

Moscow's Red Square

With all due respect, bestowing awards upon great films should not be a Democratic process to the extent that it allows for doddering retirement-home taste buds to play a significant role in the selection process. The deadwoods, keep in mind, are almost certainly the ones who cast the votes that denied Brokeback Mountain the Best Picture Oscar in early '06.

Find me the director or producer who would honestly say "yes, I want as many septugenarians and octogenarians as possible deciding whether my film deserves a Best Picture Oscar or not."

Young Turk spells it out<< previous | next >>Barack's health-care spot

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on February 11, 2008 at 10:55 AM

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

"Russian Communism lasted for 74 years and thank goodness it's gone, but you have to extend a certain grudging respect to the old Russian commies for knowing how to get rid of undesirables."

Finally. It's out in the open.

Posted by Rich S. at February 11, 2008 11:52 AM

comment #2

Pelham123 says ...

I think the Washington state Republican party agees with this thinking.

Posted by Pelham123 at February 11, 2008 11:53 AM

comment #3

JoeGreenia says ...

It's not a question of getting rid of them then, it's making sure they actually watch some movies. That's the missing mechanism.

Posted by JoeGreenia at February 11, 2008 12:01 PM

comment #4

Dravot says ...

That's great, but... who gets to make the decision about who's "with it" and who's not? What's the criteria? What if most (if not all) of the voters in the 70+ age bracket take objection to the notion that they don't understand the aesthetics of the times?

Will you, Jeffrey, be able to make that judgment about your own tastes when you grow older and retire from the field? Or will you insist that you're one of the few "clear-eyed" types who can continue to render valid criticisms into your 80s, perhaps in the face of younger people who soberly (and somewhat rudely) explain that you don't "get it" any more?

I agree with Joe -- the main solution should be to make sure the voters actually *see* all of the important films.

Posted by Dravot at February 11, 2008 12:05 PM

comment #5

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Dravot: I'm not retiring, ever. My motto is "die at your desk." Certain people are X-factor and yes, tend to think independently and incisively regardless of age. I like to flatter myself by thinking I might be among this group, but who's to say?

Posted by gruver1 at February 11, 2008 12:12 PM

comment #6

MarkVH says ...

"If Uncle Joe wanted a guy gone, his henchmen didn't mess around. They'd drive the guy out to his dacha in the middle of the night and that would be that."

This, taken in its satirical context, is possibly the funniest thing I've ever read on this site. Nice work Jeff.

Posted by MarkVH at February 11, 2008 12:14 PM

comment #7

Dave says ...

"The Third Reich lasted for 12 years and thank goodness it's gone, but you have to extend a certain grudging respect to the Nazis for knowing how to get rid of undesirables."

Posted by Dave at February 11, 2008 12:17 PM

comment #8

Lipstik Music says ...

Jeff, you're a genius. As Spoony Luv once said, "Don't ever change."

Posted by Lipstik Music at February 11, 2008 12:17 PM

comment #9

cinefan says ...

I think Dravot's question is a valid one: who gets to decide who's with it and who's not. Do you subject every member of the Academy over 70 (or even 60?) to, like, a mandatory twenty-minute interview to determine if they should be removed as academy voters?

Posted by cinefan at February 11, 2008 12:18 PM

comment #10

christian says ...

Is this why Obama supporters ascare me?

Posted by christian at February 11, 2008 12:21 PM

comment #11

gruver1 says ...

Wells to cinefan: Some sort of aesthetic review process of Academy members is not, honestly, the worst idea I've ever heard. It's an absolute fact that you start living more in the past than in the present when you get older, so what's so bad about trying to determine how far "gone" an Academy member is? I could write up a questionaire (50 questions about this, that and other things) that, trust me, would weed out the pikers.

Posted by gruver1 at February 11, 2008 12:26 PM

comment #12

swhitty says ...

Apart from paeans to Uncle Joe, there's another problem here, and it's a membership that's clearly not taking their responsibilities seriously. (Years ago I knew of one Academy member who simply gave his ballot to his wife to fill out.)

But it's hard to address. Unless you're going to do away with screeners, how can you make sure people are seeing the films? And do you really want to just kick out the over-65 crowd? Someone like John Huston was doing better work at near-80 then plenty of younger directors today.

I think the answer might be an Academy that applied the same criteria as most critics' groups I know -- if you want to be an active, voting member you need to be an active, working member. Set a standard -- five years say -- and stick to it. You haven't had a credit in that time, you don't get a vote.

Seems that would weed out a lot of deadwood while not being age-discriminatory.

Posted by swhitty at February 11, 2008 12:32 PM

comment #13

Rich S. says ...

"I could write up a questionaire (50 questions about this, that and other things) that, trust me, would weed out the pikers."

You're on.

Posted by Rich S. at February 11, 2008 12:32 PM

comment #14

corey3rd says ...

The deadwood used to let their Academy membership lapse. But that stopped when the studios began sending out the video screeners. No nobody wants to quit because they can't afford to cut off their family's supply of free movies.

If the Academy banned the studios from sending out the free DVDs and forced members to actually see the movies in theaters, you'd see that 70 year old deadwood voting block shrink.

Posted by corey3rd at February 11, 2008 12:42 PM

comment #15

Michael says ...

I'm with Wells here. There should be a vetting process in which, if you haven't seen all of the movies in a category you're voting for, priviliges are then revoked.

Also, if they take away your driver's license because of diminished capacity. I know that means Nolte can't vote anymore...but we Stalinists know that rules are rules.

Posted by Michael at February 11, 2008 12:53 PM

comment #16

AndrewOwens says ...

"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem" J.V. Stalin

Jeff made it quite clear that he would only start killing the academy's old and infirm if he were made King of the Oscars. Tom Hanks seems hale and healthy, so no worries.

Still, I can imagine 80 year old ex-editors being dragged into the street by jackbooted thugs..."please, check my voting form again! I'm sure I voted for Brokeback, not Crash!"

60 years later, The Purges would be the subject of many a harrowing Best Documentary winner.

Posted by AndrewOwens at February 11, 2008 12:58 PM

comment #17

Dave says ...

And 60 years later, who gets the Elia Kazan award?

Actually, while constantly and consistently bemused by Jeff's hysterical ol' lady hyperbole, the larger point is a good one: *every* Academy voter should be required to see every film before they vote in the specific category. That shouldn't be so hard to do, right? Just send them a scan card with their nomination sheet that they have to bring to a theater. Might have to make some workaround for festivals or advance screenings, but people are smart, they'll figure it out.

Of course, if we instituted this system, Jeff would never, ever have gotten an Academy vote for Best Picture in any year with a Peter Jackson nomination, for he admits to having missed the nominees for Best Picture in those cases.

Sucks to be you, Jeff, but the KGB may be kind enough to shoot you in the back and give your family an open casket funeral, tovarisch.

Posted by Dave at February 11, 2008 1:14 PM

comment #18

lazarus says ...

Corey3rd, very good point. The screener thing is what's really fucking up the whole process. We hear debates about how a nominated film will "play at home". Why should we be thinking that way? Doesn't every film have the right to be seen in the proper format?

Academy members should have a card with all the nominated films on it. You get it stamped at the theatre when you see one of them. If you haven't seen a certain percentage of the films, then your ballot is tossed, tough shit. Or maybe if you haven't seen everything in a specific category, your choice for that one isn't included.

It's a PRIVILEDGE to be able to vote on the awards, not a Sunday paper crossword puzzle. If that's not appreciated by the members, then it should be their loss, not the institution of cinema's, or the people who give their lifeblood to make these films.

Posted by lazarus at February 11, 2008 1:16 PM

comment #19

lazarus says ...

I guess we're thinking along the same lines at the same time, Dave.

Posted by lazarus at February 11, 2008 1:17 PM

comment #20

christian says ...

Spiert Spionam!

Posted by christian at February 11, 2008 1:35 PM

comment #21

christian says ...

Or even better, Smiert Spionam!

Posted by christian at February 11, 2008 1:37 PM

comment #22

corey3rd says ...

but it is nice when an Academy member is more in it for the free screeners since that's how I was able to vote in two Oscar races.

Posted by corey3rd at February 11, 2008 1:57 PM

comment #23

Jay T. says ...

Wells - you know what they should really do? Turn the ballot into a quiz, asking basic questions that you couldn't answer without having seen the movies in question. If they answer incorrectly, their votes don't count.

Posted by Jay T. at February 11, 2008 2:07 PM

comment #24

Craig Kennedy says ...

You're asking a group to change that has no obvious motivation to do so. As long as people continue to talk about them and watch the damn show, the Oscars will continue the way they always have and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's a private club, not a democracy.

You want it to change? Stop talking about it.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at February 11, 2008 2:17 PM

comment #25

Gus Petch says ...

The young, tech-savvy crowd of IMDB users also rates Crash as a better movie than Brokeback.

Posted by Gus Petch at February 11, 2008 2:18 PM

comment #26

dixiedugan says ...

Now, my one grandmother is a wonderful lively gal in her very late eighties, goes out, takes care of herself, has most of her marbles together. Would I trust her to be a voting member of the Academy? Hell no. I say cut it at eighty two or three, and kill the screeners from the studio.

I personally know a voting member who had their grandchild fill in the blanks. No shit.

Posted by dixiedugan at February 11, 2008 3:46 PM

comment #27