By Mickey Jhonny
Hey, check it out; the nominees for the 2013 awards of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have hit your local newsstand. As usual, film aficionados everywhere are pulling out their hair.
Nothing new about that, though. Film buffs hardly need to be explained that the Oscar nominees shouldn't be confused with the best moves of the year. In fact, in truth, the actual best of the year are frequently obscure independent productions that are seen by a pretty small audience. That's just a fact of life. Such films won't be making the Academy's cut.
It isn't though simply a matter of visibility. One needs to remember that the Academy is essentially a union and not a particularly modest one. (I know they've have you believe they are a public service - wouldn't most unions like you to think that about them?) And, the truth is, most of those independent films are created by actors and technical staff working well below union wages and even for free - and of not Academy members. Do you really think the Academy is going to honor the work of "scabs"?
Even, though, if your film doesn't fall into that disqualifying category, there are plenty of other ways to get disqualified. The two main irritants can be called Politics and politics.
Nothing new about that, though. Film buffs hardly need to be explained that the Oscar nominees shouldn't be confused with the best moves of the year. In fact, in truth, the actual best of the year are frequently obscure independent productions that are seen by a pretty small audience. That's just a fact of life. Such films won't be making the Academy's cut.
It isn't though simply a matter of visibility. One needs to remember that the Academy is essentially a union and not a particularly modest one. (I know they've have you believe they are a public service - wouldn't most unions like you to think that about them?) And, the truth is, most of those independent films are created by actors and technical staff working well below union wages and even for free - and of not Academy members. Do you really think the Academy is going to honor the work of "scabs"?
Even, though, if your film doesn't fall into that disqualifying category, there are plenty of other ways to get disqualified. The two main irritants can be called Politics and politics.
Using the upper case, Politics, refers to the ideological commitments of the members of the Academy - unionists after all! So, naturally films that depict capitalists and business men generally as venal and even sinister, that lament war (unless patriotic and "just"), celebrate the causes of supposedly downtrodden minorities and provide heartfelt inspirational messages about the triumph of the human spirit, are always well ahead of the curve in Academy-think.
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performa
And with the lower case, politics, I'm addressing the unwritten pecking order rules that are ubiquitous. You can't win an award too young/early (though there is an occasional break on this in the acting category); you have to earn your spurs. Many Oscar watchers have that moment when they just threw up their hands and could never take it seriously again.
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performa
That moment came for me in 1995. That was the year that best director was award to Zemeckis, for Forrest Gump. Really? I'm not saying it wasn't a good and well directed movie, but honestly, there was this little thing call Pulp Fiction also qualified for that same year. Not merely the best (and best directed) movie of the previous year, but quite arguably the best of the previous decade. The fact that it was a pioneer in unleashing the golden age of the 90s only served to provide post facto evidence of its greatness. But, Quentin Tarrantino was a first time nominee. He couldn't win. It was laughable. Not though unusual: a more recent egregious case was when Peter Jackson was passed over for the director's award for the first - and, as it turned out, by far the best - installment of Lord of the Rings.
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performance by Meryl Streep is deemed worthy of exception to this rule, I'm not sure: I suppose it's always important to have a token exception so they can't be accused of doing what they do.) Presumably something like such an attitude explains the exclusion of yet another gut wrenching performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Really, is there any longer any doubt that Hanks is the all time greatest film actor? It would be my vote. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming post on this topic.)
In the end, then, what can we say? Another year and another time that my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or whatever year) fails to be nominated by the stately old Academy. But, hey, to reference the great closing song to another movie masterpiece snubbed by the Oscars, "it don't worry me." I know that somewhere commitment to integrity and achievement in the movies is being honored. Just not on Hollywood Boulevard.
About the Author:
And just as newcomers have to wait, the elders must be honored. Some pretty absurd results have followed in the history of the Oscars. Probably the most egregious was Dustin Hoffman's tour de force portrayal of Ratso Rizzo in Midnight Cowboy being passed over to pat John Wayne on the back for yet another insipid cookie-cutter performance in True Grit.
Then there are those instances, as in this year, when it seems the Academy doesn't want to nominate some people too often. I suppose you can't have them thinking they're bigger than the collective. (Why it is that any banal performance by Meryl Streep is deemed worthy of exception to this rule, I'm not sure: I suppose it's always important to have a token exception so they can't be accused of doing what they do.) Presumably something like such an attitude explains the exclusion of yet another gut wrenching performance by Tom Hanks in Captain Russell. (Really, is there any longer any doubt that Hanks is the all time greatest film actor? It would be my vote. Watch Best Movies of 2013 for an upcoming post on this topic.)
In the end, then, what can we say? Another year and another time that my pick for best of the best movies of 2013 (or whatever year) fails to be nominated by the stately old Academy. But, hey, to reference the great closing song to another movie masterpiece snubbed by the Oscars, "it don't worry me." I know that somewhere commitment to integrity and achievement in the movies is being honored. Just not on Hollywood Boulevard.
About the Author:
Mickey Jhonny remains emerging as one of the most original and bold voices in movie and TV commentary. If you're a fan of Mad Men, you won't want to miss his sensational piece dissecting the secret of the show's success. His article criticizing the vilification of popular culture and celebrities by the anti-eating disorder crowd remains an online bombshell. Don't miss it!