OK, I am going to get all graphy on your arse.
People have been going on and on about how out of touch the Oscars are, not only from the public but also the critics. While I think this is true, I was finding it hard to see a pattern.
More often then not the AMPAS side more with the critics. Last year was a brilliant example of that. Every film in the final top 5 scored 80 or more on metacritic.
If you break it down by year, and take the average of the metacritic scores of all five best picture nominees, you will get something that looks like this:
As you can see the average of the quality of the 5 films up for best picture this year are the worst in a long time according to film critics.
But if you take into account the difference between the highest rated Best Picture nominee and the lowest in a given year you will see that the difference remains more or less the same:
It would seem that the Academy is more or less on par with the critics, give or take a few glaring omissions (usually a Pixar film which are usually the highest rated films of the year). But they seem to like what they like, which is shown by the fact that almost every year there is a film that is considered to be very weak.
What they like no one really knows for sure, we can figure out what they don't like though.
But what of the public? Does the Academy represent the public opinion?
How about if we take into account the amount each film has made domestically?
If we take the average gross of all five Best Picture nominees per year we see something like this:
If we take the highest grossing nominee and then the lowest grossing we can see how the divide between popular blockbuster and small indie is declining:
What is the reason?
Is this simply a case where the Academy is out of touch?
Is it a case where the public at large no longer care to see quality films, indie or otherwise?
Is it simply a case that the big studios are not producing films that the majority of the public wish to see, yet alone love?
One could say it is a combination of all of the above, but looking at the top 20 grossing films since 2001 we can see that there are critically acclaimed films that were not nominated for Best Picture. These include: 'Oceans Eleven', 'Shrek', 'Monsters Inc', 'Catch Me If You Can', 'Minority Report', 'Finding Nemo', 'Pirates of the Carribean', 'The Passion of the Christ', 'The Incredibles', 'X2 - X-Men United', 'Spider Man 2', 'The Bourne Identity/Supremacy/Ultimatum', 'Fahrenheit 9/11', 'King Kong', 'Batman Begins', 'Walk the Line', 'The 40 Year Old Virgin', 'Dreamgirls', 'Ratatouille', 'Knocked Up', 'American Gangster', 'WALL-E', 'Iron Man', 'The Dark Knight'.
Hmmm. See the pattern?
The Academy do not think genre films are quality films, no matter how highly acclaimed they are.
These include animated films, super hero films, action films and comedies (for a comedy to be nominated for the big prize it really should be a sub genre ie: musical/comedy or comedy/drama - 'Juno' and 'Little Miss Sunshine' had plenty of dramatic moments).
In fact if a genre film is lucky enough to cross over it either has to be a fantasy film adapted from a beloved work (Lord of the Rings) or a genre film that blurs the lines ('The Silence of the Lambs', 'Exorsist') or just far too big to ignore (LOTR again and 'Star Wars'). If you take the information from the above graphs, what you can see is that 2004 was probably the best cross over of indie film, critical darling and public popularity. Those films were: 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King', 'Lost in Translation', 'Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World', 'Mystic River' and 'Seabiscuit'.
People say the Academy do not really matter anymore, but in a way it does (we film bloggers alone would have nothing to predict and bitch about if they didn't exist). For a film to hold the title of Oscars 'Best Picture of the year' means greater box office and DVD revenues - so it is financially important. Plus winners in their various categories hold prestige, and usually find it easier to climb up the Hollywood ladder.
However, what is clear, is that this organization is loosing grip with the changing world. They have succumbed to an 'Animated Film' category which gives them a chance to award films they love, but are too embarrassed to lump into 'Best Picture'. To do so would be to admit that the craft they love is changing.
Movie making IS changing. Actors no longer have to appear on screen, cinematographers can almost be digitally replaced, and directing is ending up being much more collaborative. We are now living in a world of movies where animated films can tell us more about being alive than non animated films, where some of the best and most complex stories are coming from comic books and some of the most heartbreaking and world view changing things are not in the latest holocaust/war film, but in documentaries.
Yet none of these genres of film ever compete for the big prize (only 'Beauty and the Beast' has crossed over). Perhaps the Academy will come up with 'Best Action Film' and 'Best Comedy Film' categories to further segregate something as universal as film.
If we lived in a world where genre did not matter, only the excellence in film, then the 2009 Academy Award Best Picture Nominees would be: 'The Class', 'Man on a Wire', 'Slumdog Millionaire', 'WALL-E', 'Waltz With Bashir'.
Heck if the best films of the year were the ones getting the highest votes on IMDB the nominees would be 'The Dark Knight', 'Gran Torino', Slumdog Millionaire', 'WALL-E', 'The Wrestler'.
Since it is obvious that Oscar has no business saying what something so personal as 'Best' is, perhaps we should just move on. I mean awards are great, and we all want to see our favourites win something, but do they really matter? I mean she doesn't have an Oscar, BAFTA, Emmy, Golden Globe, not even a Satellite award, but is there anyone out there who does not think that Toni Collette is one of the most talented actresses working today?
Awards are hardly a measure of talent, and the Oscars are completely out of touch.
