The Moviegoer: Six Ways of Watching the Oscars

1) As a Glimpse into the Mindset of an Academy Voter

The dirty little secret of the Oscars is that while they're often derided and dismissed as the self-celebration of a liberal elite, they're actually more conservative than you might think. The average Academy voter is white, male, older and wealthy, and has been insulated in show business for years; the average Academy voter will almost always pick a period piece over a modern film, or pick a feel-good movie that speaks to Hollywood's past over a movie that asks questions about the here-and-now. For the past several years, I've made Oscar Predictions for Cinematical from the perspective of that average Academy voter, who I choose to personify as Ernest Borgnine; when making Oscar pics for what will win (not what should win) I simply ask "What Would Ernest Borgnine Do?" This is why, for example, Pulp Fiction loses Best Picture to Forrest Gump, or Traffic loses to Gladiator. I don't think anything can derail the No Country for Old Men juggernaut at this point -- and I don't think that any film should -- but if Michael Clayton or Atonement take Best Picture, you can thank Borgnine. (This also helps Juno screenwriter Diablo Cody's chances, as a Best Original Screenplay award for Juno isn't just a validation of that film's charms but also a validation of Cody's own, cinematic, obscurity-to-fame journey; often, the Oscar's not for the story in the movie but the story of the movie.)

2) As the Death Throes of a Wounded Industry

When -- not 'if,' but when -- Jon Stewart pauses, deer-in-headlights style on Sunday after a bit bombs, it'll just be a reminder that the Oscar show was cobbled together in a rush after the end of the WGA strike. When the relatively low box-office take of the Oscar nominees is discussed, it'll be a reminder that the movie industry can't figure out how to get grown-ups into the theater. When Variety publishes its round-up of the awards (in an edition made significantly thinner by the absence of the "For Your Consideration" ads that fatten the magazine and the bottom line during the prelude to Awards season), it'll be a reminder that that publication is for sale. Every moment at the Oscars can, potentially, be viewed as a reminder that the landscape of entertainment is changing fast, and that no one knows how to fix it, and all the glitter and glamour is just artfully choreographed re-arrangement of the deck chairs on the proverbial sinking ship.

3) As a Exercise in Pure Number-Crunching

Every seasoned Oscar-watcher knows certain formulas for predicting the winner. Movies without Best Director nominations rarely win Best Picture, for example, and there's a strong correlation between the awards given by various critic's groups and other professional associations and Oscar success. FilmJerk's Edward Havens has done the math for us all this year, and his article makes for a fascinating read that pokes around under the hood of the Oscars -- and also serves as a handy cheat sheet to blow out your office Oscar Pool.

4) As the Worst Possible Kind of Entertainment "Journalism"

Seriously, what the hell is Joey Fatone doing hosting any kind of coverage -- even coverage as dim and dull as red carpet arrivals -- that involves art and culture? What qualifies Fatone to do this in any way, aside from his own experience of celebrity acquired as a boy band member? Do the people who produce Oscars coverage truly fear that if someone competent and informed asks an intelligent question of the stars on the red carpet, the ground in front of the Kodak theater will open up and swallow all of L.A.? If the Academy wonders why viewership is in decline for the Oscars in recent years -- which it is -- they should think about the possibility that liveblogging offers people who enjoy movies more than celebrity to follow Oscar coverage from writers and journalists who actually know what they're talking about (I'll be following Greencine, Hollywood Elsewhere and Cinematical's liveblogging, for a start) as opposed to the numb, dumb fashion discussions and hey-how-are-ya's? of Fatone or Billy Bush.

5) In the Context of What Wasn't Nominated

Watch Away from Her and explain to me why Gordon Pinsent wasn't nominated as a Best Actor contender. Watch I'm Not There and explain to me why Christian Bale isn't nominated for a real, raw performance that blows Cate Blanchett's showy work off the screen. Watch The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and tell me why that film isn't nominated for Best Picture. Watch Things We Lost in the Fire and tell me why Benicio Del Toro isn't nominated for Best Actor, or watch A Mighty Heart and tell me why Angelina Jolie isn't nominated for Best Actress. And how can a film as creative, as innovative, as expressive and magnificently obsessed as I'm Not There not earn Todd Haynes a Best Director nod? Any film critic worth reading has a list of frustrations and coulda-shoulda-wouldas like the one above; track those lists down, make a few viewing choices based on them, and you'll witness some amazing art and entertainment.

6) As, Shockingly, a Guide to the Best of Movie Making

There's the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day. And the Oscars -- no matter how imperfect, shallow, doddering and unjust you and I might think they are -- still honor some amazing creative work; if Sunday's airing of a clip from The Diving Bell and the Butterfly inspires people to see it, wonderful; same for Persepolis, or There Will Be Blood or even No Country For Old Men. In fact, if you want to know the most sure-fire way to put together a slate of fascinating films -- a group of movies that, when watched, will give you not just a glimpse of the best possible moviemaking but also into what Hollywood was thinking about any given year -- all you have to do is watch the 10 Best Screenplay nominees from a given year, Adapted and Original. The Academy Awards aren't perfect, and they aren't simple. What in life is?

Comments

[ProudLiberalDan]

Speaking of "Ernest Borgnine", the dirty little secret about the Oscars is that there is no requirement that the members of the Academy see all of the nominations, or ANY of the nominations, in a category before voting.

When Ernest Borgnine, Tony Curtis and Robert Duvall boasted to the media they hadn't seen Brokeback Mountain, that was revealing about how serious they take needing to see the films first. Curtis said he knew lots of others who felt and did the same as he did. Jack Nicholson admitted on Oprah that voted FOR Brokeback Mountain because he HEARD it was a wonderful movie. (After Heath Ledger died, he revealed that he still hasn't seen it.) So, it cuts both ways.

The official "party line" is that all of the members of the Academy feel so honored just to be part of the Academy that they take their vote seriously and see everything. This is, of course, in practice, not reality.

I do have a very good friend in the Art Director's branch who tries to see everything, and I mean everything that is nominated, and he almost makes it each year. Almost. He deeply regrets that nonviewing probably cost Amy Adams the Oscar in 2005, as we estimated that not even a majority of the Academy even saw the superb film "Junebug" before voting for Best Supporting Actress. I also have a friend in the Writer's Guild who was married to an Academy member for 11 years who received her ballot to fill out when she said, "honey, I haven't seen the films this year, you fill it out." These are real life stories told to my face.

I don't want to diminish the Academy itself. Being in an organization like the Academy is a great honor to be proud of. However, it is the voting rules for the Oscar itself that are a crock. Academy voters should be free to vote however they want. I wouldn't expect them to always agree with me. (Remember, the Academy didn't even give the Oscar to Citizen Kane.) They should be required to see ALL of the nominations in a category before voting.

They could be required to sign a statement when turning in their ballot that they've seen every nomination in every category in which they've voted.

They could do what the Emmys do and have required screenings. Required viewing reduces the voting pool, but you get a more credible result. The Oscar has more glamor and prestige, but I personally have more respect for the Emmy because of their viewing requirements.

There are some categories like "Documentary Feature", "Foreign Langauge Film", the shorts, etc. that the Oscars already have required screening, so this isn't a new concept. The amazing and haunting film "The Lives of Others" never would have won the Best Foreign Language Film last year without required screenings.

I don't want to bash the Academy. I just want them to extend screening requirements to every category.

Even if the did, there will still be Oscars given as lifetime achievement awards for work that isn't their best, and disagreements over who wins, and mediocre 2-1/2 star films like "Crash" and "The Greatest Show on Earth" occasionally winning Best Picture. But those are the good arguments to have.

Remember, it was Academy members themselves who went to the media and admitted to voting without viewing. It is up to the Academy in the future to tell us what they will do about this to require viewing BEFORE voting.

[BlackJAC]

The reason why Best Picture nominees have such low grosses is because they're boring. Out of them, I only saw MICHAEL CLAYTON because it looked interesting to me. Don't make movies with an award in mind, make 'em with the audience in mind, and never forget that SPIDERMAN 2 was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning novelist Michael Chabon.

[Homa]

Excellent article. Except that you forgot to mention:

BORING BORING BORING

Tedious, Predictable....

[gala1]

Oh, how high-minded.

Here are 6 other reasons. The REAL ones.

1. The clothes. This is my 55th year of watching the Oscars, and since I come from a family of female couturiers whose comments were as accurate as they were priceless, this has been the one night of the year that I have sacramentally remained true to my Inner Tulle. No matter how many of them I have spent in jeans and a t-shirt.

2. Schadenfreude. Really , only the people in the industry are entitled to it, but these days everybody's a critic, no?

3. Checking out how old everyone has gotten. As well as the extent of the renovations that have laminated some legends. Gives a whole new meaning to a body of work.

4. Getting into the spirit of it all.
When else can you shamelessly enjoy schmaltzy montages and the glow of supernumerary gratitude for your picks.
I'm a sucker for montage. They remind me how much I truly love to go to the movies and how much of my life and when and where it was I spent doing that.
Best way to waste 4 hours a year being a sentimental voyeur ever. No matter how bizarrely illogical it actually is to pit performances against each other.

5. Acceptance speeches. For the next week or so you will find yourself suddenly a foot taller, glowing blond as the statuette you hold and wearing the one dress that makes you stand up against the TV and drool, effusively thanking the mailbox or checkout line.

6. The clothes again. Every year, for the 55th time, I wish that next year In Hollywood I get to finally wear them and have the best of all possible reasons for doing so.

gala

[LeonBNJ]

The Oscars (R) have always have been about the money and fame. Far too often, they have missed the really good films, actors and so on due to studio politics, the composition of the voters, the 'payoffs' to voters, and that sometimes, a movie may be poorly timed as to it's release as to the Oscar consideration or of the politics of the time. I don't take them too seriously, especially in recent years when most movies are really made to entertain a very narrow aged audience with the most time, money and circumstances (dating, get out of the house) to go to the movies. They are too focused on making money than making movies that mean something of good characters, good acting, real life and saying something important to our times. Thankfully, there are some 'independent' filmakers who do fill the void Hollywood films have.