Shouldn't "Best" Mean Something?
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 4:19PM 
By now you've heard that the Producers Guild, one of the true Oscar precursors, will stick to 10 Best Picture Nominees thank you very much. I'm sure we'll be hearing more of this from all precursor voting bodies. Many of them had ten nominees / honorees before Oscar even went there, hewing close to the critical "top ten" system. Since most precursors have a weird desire to predict Oscar that is equal to or even sadly greater than their desire to name "best" we assume most of them will stick to ten.
This way all of them can be 100% accurate in predicting the golden boy -- just have more nominees than could ever make it to Oscar's shortlist and you'll always be 100% accurate! The Hollywood Reporter thinks this will make the Oscars look elitist as the PGA is bound to honor Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two (a franchise they've already nominated if you'll recall) and Oscar probably won't. They write:
And the Academy will find itself back where it was three years ago, fending off accusations of elitism.
They say "elitism" like it's a bad thing!
OUR HONEST QUESTION: Shouldn't you be elitist when you're naming "BEST"? Isn't that part of the deal?
Harry Potter, Oscars (11), precursor awards
Reader Comments (34)
Well ... I agree in theory, but the problem is I think you have a different idea of elitism than The Academy does. Their brand of elitism nominates mediocrity like Frost/Nixon b/c it is 'important.' Yours means being selective.
The whole point of the Academy is to highlight films to make them more popular. The whole idea is anti-elitism, it just has to be selective to do so.
alex & rj -- good points. maybe the problem truly lies with the media who are just intent on driving home these rigid separations of WHAT'S HOT and WHAT'S NOT and equating the former with BEST?
They were being accused of elitism because they were overlooking genre films and animation for that "highest honor"... there are certain movies that are intended to be masterpieces, and ones that are intended to be entertainment, but deserve to be counted within the pantheon of "the greatest." A panel of "important," historically-informed personalities will naturally gravitate toward the former type, which is what people are calling "elitism"... that the Academy weighted their decisions toward intention, sometimes by at the expense of actual final product. More choices means they can widen their net to fit a broader base of films. So hey... I don't think this (self?-)criticism is entirely unwarranted.
Totally agree with Nathaniel on this one. Also, HP7.2 was the worst Harry Potter film since the last Harry Potter film.
But Jon how do you really feel? ;)
would you rank them as all equally bad?
I think the problem is that what the public generally thinks is best can vary wildly from the Academy.
Though I'm not a batman fan, even I could see that the Dark Knight was a better film than some nominated in Best Picture that year. It's slights like that which give the Academy an air of elitism.
Which is why I liked the idea of 10 nominees because you can cover a wide arrange of films and get a true representation of the film year. Think about 2009, in a regular year of 5, would Precious really have caught on as a Best Picture nominee? Being in a year of 10 really helped because when it came out a Sundance people began speculating whether it would get a nomination.
I think that is going to be missing with this newest rule change.
THANK YOU Nathaniel!
Seriously, this debate pisses me off.
1. In general, elitist has become a perjorative phrase, and that alone is enough to want to knock people about until they get some sense.
2. Terrence, you're right to argue that what the public thinks is best is different from what AMPAS does. But why is that? AMPAS hasn't changed. They still like war movies, biopics, adult dramas, true life stories etc – that they liked before. Hell, I’d argue that the academy of the 70’s was the most adventurous it was ever. EXCEPT THE PUBLIC WENT TO THOSE MOVIES TOO. Nathaniel, do you still have that graphic pointing out best picture winners with their gross adjusted for inflation? If so, please repost it. It will surprise you. Kramer vs Kramer, a domestic drama about a newer phenomenon (middle-class divorce, feminism, new fatherhood), made numbers that would match The Bourne Ultimatum today. What’s the current equivalent? Beginners? I’m pleased to report that it’s made a robust 4 million dollars. Maybe that’s not it. Can you even think of a modern equivalent? The Kids are All Right? Rabbit Hole? Want other examples?
Last Tango in Paris vs Shortbus or Intimacy
All the President’s Men vs Good Night and Good Luck
3. So, people complain about AMPAS narrow taste (and we all do it. AMPAS taste are regrettably narrow). But the public’s tastes are even narrower. Check out box office mojo if you want to be depressed.
4. But further to that, SO WHAT! When organizations give awards to predict the Oscars, they’re asking for confirmation of their taste. Why should a group of six thousand mostly old white guys be exactly like me? Hell, Nathaniel’s closer to me in taste and temperament and if his top ten ever echoes mine entirely, I’d be rather annoyed (just so we’re clear, his favourite film of 2010 was my LEAST favourite – I Am Love – so I think we’re safe). While I’m past the point of using AMPAS as an arbiter of taste, I’d like to think it’s part of cinephilia to not follow lock-stock-and-barrel with the movie-going public.
5. So yes, elitist is entirely positive when it comes to awards. I’d like to think all these people strive to be considered elite and to pretend that a revenue-stream-masquerading-as-a-movie (let’s be honest, Harry Potter is the cinematic equivalent of a novelization in the first place) is somehow deserving of a prize is just silly. It’s like pretending George W. Bush deserved to be president. (rimshot)
gotta love the rimshot.
I liked HP8 just fine, but I wouldn't throw a Best Picture nomination at it. From the perspective of a fan, it's a fitting conclusion. From a filmmaking perspective, it's solid entertainment, but not a masterpiece of cinema. Will it really stand as one of the best films of the year? I doubt it. Call me elitist, but I really believe that just because you CAN nominate popular movies doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Arkaan - I usually have no problem with the Academy's taste. I was more defending why the 10 film idea was actually a good one. As they are the professionals, we must assume the Academy knows what they are doing, even though it appears sometimes they don't ;)
This is probably just me personally, but I do like to see some overlap between what the public is going to see and what awards bodies nominate. Though I dislike this movie strongly, it was (semi) refreshing to see The Blind Side get a nomination. Sports pictures have a tough time get nominated at all and this film was also a crowd pleaser so it was interesting to see the Academy Award it with a nomination. The superior (and significantly less financially successful) picture, The Hurt Locker, won so all was well. But the 10 film idea allowed for films you (meaning the general public) might not have thought would get nominated due to genre bias, box office, difficult subject matter, etc. to get nominated.
Nat-
I'm interested in your opinion about whether under these new rules, will we have a 5 or 10 film year. Will the voters want to admit it was a weak year by only nominating say 6 films for Best Picture?
I'm a MAJOR potterhead and I wouldn't nominate the last movie. Actually, I wouldn't nominate any of them. Individual performances, perhaps- Hey, Imelda, talking about you-art direction, cinematography, but that's about it. The movies are usually poorly scripted, the direction is mediocre, the pace is always rushed, the series as a whole feels very uneven, and it cant hold a candle to the original material.
Are the people who think HP8 deserves a Best Pic spot and who consider "elitist" a pejorative term going to be aware of or pay attention to what the PGA does?
Terence - Yeah, I think Precious would've been nominated either way. The main 5 films that year were Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, and Up in the Air...
I just hate that the academy feels like only dramas can be honored. Only dramas can be "the best".
Terence -- i get the argument for the ten, i really do. But i'm willing to be okay with this new experiment (though i wish they'd stop experimenting full stop. institutions are supposed to be sturdy traditional things.... not rule changers constantly). as for how many they nominate. They'll never be able to make conscious decisions like that. Since there are thousands of members it all depends on how they vote. We might have strong years with only 5 nominees because they (mostly) agree on the best and we might have weak years with 9 nominees because the votes are all over the place.
this is just my new theory but i really don't think the number be it 5,6,7,8, or 9 is going to expand and contract with how good a film year it is. I think it's all going to depend on how much consensus there is
philip -- i hate the "only drama" thing too. though it's interesting to me that in the early days they were much less concerned with only IMPORTANT-SEEMING pictures making it in. I mean IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT is perfection but it's basically a romantic comedy with some socioeconomic subtext and it never would win best picture today. so it's sad that they've lost that playfulness in the voting.
Nathaniel, I think you're absolutely right that the number of nominees will depend on the extent of consensus, not the extent of how "good" the film year was. But "consensus" is tricky; it's not just about how much people agree, but also on how many movies that consensus has rested.
For example, if everyone agrees that the Best Picture should be one of five films (like in 2009?), then you would conceivably get only 5 nominees. But if everyone agrees that it's between two films (like in 2010, perhaps?), then you could get several films competing for spots 3-5 and possibly end up with 7-8 nominations. Which is the "good" year-- the year in which people were only really considering two films for BP but eight got nominated or the year in which people were considering five films and only those five were nominated?
Given that the Academy's researchers told them the number of nominees per year from 2000-2008 (this is right, yes?), then I'm hoping that the research shows that "good" years end up with more nominees. However, based on the examples above, I'm left wondering if "good years" and "more nominee years" will parallel as closely as the Academy thinks they will.
^ They regained it back in the 70s (they also grew some balls and picked some nice BOLD choices) but I'd agree completely. Bridesmaids is the funniest film in what seems like forever but will it get a BP nod? Do I even have to ask?
And honestly, when will there ever be such a strong year when everyone agrees on the five best? Even a historically robust year like 1999, everyone has their own different top five. I just keep thinking about the what-ifs with the 10 nominee rule and then back-peddling my choices with the 6-7-8-9 rule. Oh, Academy.
LOL my reply was to Nate's above. Time fail.
i like how people enjoy Bridesmaids and have brought it up in any best of year conversation because of that.
Yes, it was funny. Was it well shot? no. Was it well edited? no (for petes sake it was 125 minutes long). Was it well structured? Yes and no (tell me why the mom bridesmaid and the pixar loving young bridesmaid exist. Answers: to fill out the cast and make out at the end. Replace the actors with Pam Anderson and Carmen Electra, now are the roles gratuitous?) Was Jon Hamm amazing? Duh.
But is it one of the all time great comedies? No. Just because comedy films have sucked the last few years shouldn't elevate this movie anymore than it deserves.
I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Well, I think the Academy should nominate what they think is the best, not because it looks serious AND not because it made a lot of money.
In this case, I wouldn't mind seeing HP8 getting a nomination because 1)I think it's pretty good 2) I love it for many reasons, one of them being that it's the finale of an adaptation of a book series I love and 3) Avatar was nominated and I think it was far less worthy.
BBats -- i agree pretty much with this. I laughed and laughed at Bridesmaids but it does have some serious issues (like that whole time draining roommates subplot? wtf)
James T -- wha???? I'm sorry. I get that it's popular to hate on Avatar and i get that maybe i overpraised it myself. But it's still this huge innovative brilliantly directed and technically marvelous movie. I don't see how HP7.2 is any of those things. I really wish HP had been a tv series instead of movies. I would have much less problems with the fervor for it which i think is all based on television ideals -- longform love, cumulative power, familiar comfort-food repetitions and reprises... I'd be happy with it winning a bunch of emmys but the idea that it's the "best" of anything movies is weird to me.
I love that you still view television is a lesser medium, Nathaniel (even if you don't mean to). But I'm gonna argue that in most other nations, the borders are far more porous (Ingmar Bergman, for example).
The Academy Awards I think is always going to have to serve 2 masters: The telecast, for which they want high ratings which would necessitate popular films, and the actual awards for which they don't want to be told what to do and want to stick to their (admittedly sometimes vanilla) tastes.
I still don't know why they can't split the difference and make the telecast into a more populist "year in cinema" celebration that spills well beyond the nominated films. I say, get those Potter kids on stage, have a feature on the entire series. Why not?
Arkaan -- but how is viewing television as a longform medium, viewing it as lesser? I love long intricate story arcs and years of character development. I just don't hink they're they appropriate thing to celebrate at the Oscars since movies have to stand alone as THAT movie. Otherwise you're rewarding people for all sorts of weird reasons (which i know happens anyway but still...)
Robert, I believe its pretty safe to assume we'll see Radcliffe, Grint and Watson at the Oscar, presenting something or whatever. Dont know about nominations, but it will be impossible for them to ignore it completly.
I dont think a SAG is out of the question for HP7 though.Look at the names listed: Ralph Fiennes, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Julie Walters, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman, Jim Broadbent, Helena Bonham Carter, Michael Gambon, Jason Isaacs, Robbie Coltrane, Emma Thompson, Timothy Spall, John Hurt, Brendan Gleeson.......Hard to ignore!!
Exactly. The "long form" is not cinema, so stop pretending it is. The only reason something like Harry Potter is put in cinema is because, supposedly, TV likes two things and only two things: The show that can end at any time and the show that starts cheap. Harry Potter means they are committing to seven years and ONLY seven years. Lost (although it had an expensive start, approving it was still viewed as a reckless decision) could have ended at any time. My Name is Earl could expand the list as much as it wanted while very slowly having the total number of items fall down. The Big Bang Theory is four guys (and one girl) in a small amount of sets. So, a set time frame (or a large initial budget) is not something a TV exec is smart agreeing to. The greatest movie: Dr. Strangelove. The greatest TV show: The Wire.
Nathaniel - I don't dislike Avatat because it's popular or because you loved it. Avatar is a movie I wanted to love but totally didn't and expressed my opinion right away when almost everybody was crazy about it.
Aside from that, I agree Avatar's technical achievemnts are more impressive but I was talking about how much I liked each film and my reason for liking/loving the one instead of he other is that Avatar didn't make me like/care for the protagonists and I thought it was ethically ridiculous. I thought both movies are solid in the story-telling department.
And I know I have overcriticised Avatar but it was the first very popular+nominated movie I thought of in order to make a basically subjective case.
I'm sure it's a given that the kids will be at the Oscars this year, really why not do more than put them on stage to present Best Animated Short. Why not do a feature on the whole HP series? It's a zietgiest thing.
The more I think about it, the more the whole "Oscars are "elitist" argument seems very much based on the telecast. Yes the Dark Knight snub will be hurting them for years to come, but since then they've nominated The Blind Side, Up, Inglourious Basterds, Avatar, Black Swan, Inception, True Grit, Toy Story 3 (all populist films with different demographics) If the telecast were the least bit fun, and even dared to occasionally feature popular films that weren't necessarily nominated, I'm not sure the "elitists" argument would have legs.
<"Think about 2009, in a regular year of 5, would Precious really have caught on as a Best Picture nominee?">
Yep. Lee Daniels got that direcitng nod. Basiclaly the top five that year were Avatar, Precious, The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, and Inglourious Basterds.
I was as disappointed as anyone that The Dark Knight was not nominated in 2008, but more so, I hate what the backlash to that snub has caused. It seems like ever since then, people have this mentality that there MUST be a blockbuster movie in the mix, and if they don't, they automatically assume it must be because the Academy is elitist and out of touch. Have they snubbed deserving blockbusters before? Yes. Have they nominated undeserving smaller films before? Sure. But the fact of the matter is that not every year gives us a blockbuster as good as The Dark Knight, and I don't care how much of a Harry Potter fan someone is, Deathly Hallows Part 2 is NOT on that level. It's not anywhere close to it. So again, I thought The Dark Knight deserved a Best Picture nod, but that doesn't mean I think the Academy needs to make up for that snub by nominating a big-budget blockbuster every year. Unfortunately, a lot of other people seem to.
In all likelihood, we won't see a big moneymaker among this year's Best Picture lineup. I'm sure at least a few of the eventual nominees will start to gain a little traction at the box office after they're nominated (ala The King's Speech), but we won't have an Inception or Toy Story 3</I> in this year's lineup, because the truth is that, now that the summer is almost over, it's quite clear that none of the blockbusters released made that kind of impact. Pixar's release probably won't even get nominated for Best Animated Feature, and none of the live-action blockbusters even approached the level of (perceived) cutting-edge entertainment that Inception did. I'm not even one of the biggest supporters of Inception, but I can at least admit that it had a lot more going for it than the average blockbuster. And as entertaining as Deathly Hallows is, it's still just that: an average blockbuster. So it's the final entry in a series of average blockbusters, but that doesn't elevate to a higher level. A lot of people have a sentimental attachment to the series based on their love of the books, but let's be serious: just because the source material is great does not mean that the movies are. If that were the case, every single rendition of any Shakespeare play would have to automatically be nominated just on merit. The Potter films are very impressive as a feat of art direction, cinematography, makeup, and other technical aspects, but their claim to excellence is limited to those categories; they don't represent masterful direction, screenwriting, or (with some exceptions) acting. And so it will be nominated in the tech categories, but people really need to stop carrying their Dark Knight-related frustration into convincing themselves that other, less worthy blockbusters should be nominated.
Nathaniel said:
I remember at the 2002/2003 oscars one of your complaints was that they invited Jennifer Garner to present, arguing that she was a small screen actress and unworthy of Hollywood's high holy day. Additionally, essentially saying "I wouldn't hate Harry Potter as much if it was elsewhere" is not a positive statement. I wouldn't hate American Idol if it wasn't on television but on radio, for example. That's not a compliment to radio.
I'd also question the idea that films should stand on their own. Ignoring HP for a second, which is more of a tie-in to the book as opposed to a living cinematic entity, what about Kill Bill (wasn't much of your appreciation for the first film linked to anticipation for the next) or LOTR. Hell, how much of your appreciation for a film is contextual. We don't approach any film with a blank slate, so how can we argue that the fillm stands alone anyway?
The thing is that the borders between television and film have ALWAYS been porous, just not in the USA. Television wasn't where fading film stars went to die.
Additionally, your argument about film limits it unnecessarily. You wouldn't imagine someone saying that literature is limited to a certain number of books (is Game of Thrones a lesser work of fiction than The Raw Shark Texts because it's seven books long?).