ACADEMY AWARDS ABOUT TO "JUMP THE SHARK"?

Network America ^ | 25 Jan 2005 | Jim Condit, Jr.

[Robert Drobot]

"Jump the Shark" is a semi-known phrase meaning "lose all credibility" or "it's all downhill from here."

The phrase comes from www.jumptheshark.com - which catalogs and debates the (paraphrase) "defining moment when you know you're favorite TV Show has reached its peak and its all downhill from here."

The phrase "jump the shark" comes from a Happy Days episode - late in the series - where Fonzie went on a vacation with the Cunninghams. In that episode of the sitcom, Fonzie jumped over a jaws-like shark while waterskiing on the ocean.

Fans generally thought this moment was so absurd, that it was the signal that Happy Days was about out of steam. Happy Days had lost credibility. Happy Days had "jumped the shark."

Another example given is that "Charlie's Angels" jumped the shark when Farah Fawcett left the show (which was after only 1 year, according to the site). Get the idea? OK.

Well, network nightly TV has itself long ago "jumped the shark" as far as I'm concerned. And it is long past the time when those producing nightly network TV shows should have been arrested for corrupting minors.

And despite the already debauched image Hollywood has achieved, there has still been a sense that there was at least a good faith ATTEMPT to give the nominations and Oscars to those who deserved the awards each year, more or less.

But this year, the Academy Awards along with Oscar himself may "Jump the Shark."

As if it wasn't bad enough that Mel Gibson's movie, "The Passion of the Christ", became the 9th largest grossing film of all time - and as if it weren't bad enough that the film was hailed by just about everyone outside of Hollywood as one of the most remarkable films, if not the most remarkable film, that many had every seen - 2004 turned out to be a really, really very bad year for memorable movies, let alone movies deserving the Oscar for Best Picture.

Things were so bad that a seeming scramble took place to release flicks which might pass as credible Oscar Nominees. A flurry of films being touted for nomination were released near the December 31, 2004 deadline.

ONE PROBLEM: none of the other mentioned Oscar nominee contenders did very well at the office. A quick internet survey revealed that all of the other movies being touted as potential nominees -- including "Ray", "Million Dollar Baby", which is actually a right-to-die movie, "Kinsey", a falsified life of the pervert which never made it to 300 screens on the way to bombing, ("The Passion of the Christ" by contrast made it to about 3000 screens), "The Aviator", "Sideways", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", and "Finding Neverland" - all together hardly made the box office which was achieved by "The Passion of the Christ."

BIGGER PROBLEM: If you don't know much or anything about the rest of this "march of the mediocre" films - don't feel bad. If you keep up with the news at all, you probably know that "Ray" is about the life of recently deceased singer Ray Charles. But I would be hard pressed to tell you much of anything about any of the others. All of which means that nobody is talking about them, and nobody can find anything much to say about them - not even in the media.

Does anyone seriously think that ANY of these other movies will be talked about 5 years or 10 years from now? - as "The Passion of the Christ" surely will be?

I don't think so - because - hear me now - no one is talking about these other movies FIVE DAYS or TEN DAYS after they see them!

The more relevant question is: Is anybody talking about these other films FIVE MINUTES or TEN MINUTES after they see the films - while they are catching a bite to eat shortly after leaving the theater?

The artistic brilliance of "The Passion of the Christ" includes - and this is just from off the top of my head from the last time I saw the movie (this time on DVD) a few months ago:

* The aerial scene of the crucifixion which leads to the teardrop falling from Heaven;
* The camera work as Longinus the soldier thrusts the spear at Jesus' body which gives the feel of the blood and water from Christ's side almost hitting the viewer in the face;
* The strategically placed flashbacks which evoked emotion or made some important point, such as that Christ worked for a living and had a sense humor;
* The absolutely great acting performances turned in by the actors and actresses who played Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdelene, and Pontius Pilate. The important thing here is that all the actors did a good job in the movie - you always felt you were in the action and in the moment - one mark of a great movie. (If you wonder how good Jim Caviezel was in realistically portraying Jesus - just go back and look at the other performances in other movies about Jesus.)
* The scenes where Director Mel Gibson approximated great paintings or works of art. One of these scenes was where Christ's right hand was being nailed to the Cross, while he looks at his right hand out of the corner of his eye; another was at the end of the movie when Mary holds the lifeless body of Jesus, which had just been taken down from the Cross, and looks at the camera; this scene approximates Michaelangelo's Pieta.

Moving to another point: some news articles are claiming that Michael Moore removed himself from the documentary category. How can this be? Michael Moore's movie, Fahrenheit 911 - IS a documentary. It is not a movie version of anything. It is a documentary. How does anybody get to move their production from the category it belongs in to a category it doesn't belong in? In any case, this shoots down the argument that the Academy can't award "The Passion of the Christ" the Best Picture award because its characters speak two foreign languages.

To conclude this Network America e-wire: the Hollywood elite are in a real box this year. From an artistic point of view, from an cinematic historical point of view regarding the probable longevity in the public mind, and from the aspect of box office success - then "The Passion of the Christ" is the clear winner (not just a worthy nominee - but the CLEAR winner) for the categories of both Best Picture and Best Director.

One article entitled, "Choosing the Best Film Will be Trickier than Ever" ran in the Daily-Herald based in Provo, Utah. The article noted the following:

"While "The Passion" is sui generis in terms of subject and execution, it has the financial credentials: It was the third-biggest earner of the year, with more than $370 million gross. And, more important, it fed the moviegoing desires of a growing and increasingly influential segment of the country -- including an untapped reservoir of people who would never otherwise go to the movies.

"Does Hollywood, already wearing the Mark of Cain for being licentious, immoral and Jewish, want to antagonize the entire fundamentalist Christian community by overlooking its favorite film?"

And Pat Buchanan, guest hosting for Joe Scarborough on MSNBC a month or two ago, made this point (paraphrase): Do the Academy voters hate a really effective movie about the Passion of Jesus Christ so much that they will forego what could be the largest ratings in their history? Buchanan asked how it would be possible to attract more people to watch the Academy Awards worldwide than if both "The Passion of the Christ" and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" were both nominated for best picture of the year? Such a lineup would probably attract the largest audience ever for the Academy Awards.

It seems a certainty that the Academy is going to completely snub Jim Caviezel for his portrayal of Jesus. This is raw religious discrimination, trying to signal actors and actresses, young and old, that they'd better do soft porn or "politically correct" themes, and not wholesome movies - if they want to be recognized for their work.

But if the Academy snubs "The Passion of the Christ" - I wouldn't be surprised to see, for the first time ever, more protesters on the outside than attendees on the inside - as the cultural war divide continues to widen.

I also wouldn't be surprised if we could all hear a collective world wide laughter if we walk outside our houses at the moment the Oscar for Best Picture is awarded to one of these other comparative turkeys, rather than "The Passion of the Christ."

NOTHING is harder to rebound from for an institution that wants to be taken seriously - than to find itself the object of derision and laughter.

Will the Academy Awards and Oscar himself - "jump the shark" this year?

We'll find out a few hours from when this e-wire is released. You will find that we sent this Network America e-wire out at 11:45 PM California time on January 24, 2005 and it is so time-stamped on the independent website www.topica.com in the Network America section. The Academy Awards for movies released in 2004 are slated to be announced 6 hours from now, at 5:30 AM on January 25, 2005.

End of this e-wire.

Jim Condit Jr.,
Director, Network America Ewire List
Director, Citizens for a Fair Vote Count

[Borges]

It was a very memorable performance that has entered pop culture legend.

[TChris]

I think the article incorrectly defines the phrase, "jump the shark." AFAIK, the phrase isn't just a generic way to indicate that a show has peaked, but an indication that the show has already begun its downward slide and the producers/writers are trying increasingly desperate and pathetic measures to rejuvinate it.

The Happy Days scene was done after the show had peaked, and was trying to hold out a little longer, IIRC.

[LibertarianInExile]

Bump to that analysis!

[Lady Heron]

And frankly there's a point where religion is going to get in the way of objective analysis. People have reached the point where anyone who doesn't worship Passion of the Christ are essentially being labled by definition Atheists, etc.

While I could care less who Oscar nominates not having watched in 20 years, especially since what they think constituted a good picture is usually some liberal message shoved down the audiences throat, not a picture that stands up to time and is watched year after year like most of the original Oscar movies.

I do not think that people here would object so much if it was not such blatant hypocrisy this year. There was no other movie that even came close to being the type of ageless film, and art that Oscars are suppose to represent. If there was I think that most would understand that there is no way that Hollywood would pick "The Passion" over anything that came close.

The Passion was art (whether Christian or not) in a sea of boring, dull canned themes that have been done to death and from the pictures this article talks about, the only one that will stand the test of time for audiences.

Be honest, what other film this year was there that was shot so beautifully (or vividly depending on the view), or captured the audience the way this film did or will stand the test of time and will still have an audience 30 to 40 years from now. You can be an atheist and still see that there is no other picture this year that accomplished this.

[Betis70]

There must be something wrong with me because I was completely bored by "Ran". And I watch a lot of foreign movies.

[Lady Heron]

If people want to vote for a best picture, then vote for one of the People's choice nominees.

Not this year. From what I read it was a preselected group( of liberals of course) that were the "people" this year.

[Borges]

If you look at Best Picture winners from the last 20 years or so...most of them are pretty conservative.

[Miss Behave]

"I think I'll purchase the DVD of "The Passion" on February 27."

GREAT idea. I will do the same.

[Lady Heron]

I was on an other award thread last summer and the discussion came up about the old Oscar winners and how they have stood the test of time compared to todays Oscar winners whom many of I have never even heard of.

One year in particular came up, I am not sure, but I think we were amazed that some movie Like the "Wizard of OZ"(I am not sure this was the movie or not) did not get an Oscar, and then people began throwing up all the timeless movies that year alone created. It was amazing.

[Borges]

'The Wizard of Oz' lost to 'Gone with the Wind'. And you can't forget such memorable 'old time' Best Picture winners like Gentleman's Agreement, Around the World in 80 Days and Marty. /sarcasm

All the film that won in the last 20 years have generally stood the test of time. Well maybe not Out of Africa. But the others have.

[Lady Heron]

All the film that won in the last 20 years have generally stood the test of time.

I wish we had a list, because out of the winners of the Oscars they put up on the other thread, I had not seen or would never see again most of them. I love to go to the movies, but I want to be entertained not preached at, so I will go to the Sci-fi or action or fantasy film before the your a racist, your a homophobe, injustice movie or human interest movie any day.

Probably does not make me the best film critic but the ones I go to tend to make more money than the depressing ones. LOL! You might have noticed I left out Chick flicks, but when you are the only girl in a large family of boys there is rarely an opportunity and most have some liberal theme shoved in somewhere that just make me mad when I do go.

[Military family member]

Not true, not true, not true. Anyone could go to the web site and vote. I did. My son did.

Where did you hear or read that?

[Borges]

A movie, just like a novel or a poem, reflects the view of the person who made it. It's just like any other form of speech.

Here are the best picture winners from the last 20 years:

1984 Amadeus
1985 Out of Africa
1986 Platoon
1987 The Last Emperor
1988 Rain Man
1989 Driving Miss Daisy
1990 Dance With Wolves
1991 The Silence of the Lambs
1992 Unforgiven
1993 Schinder's List
1994 Forrest Gump
1995 Braveheart
1996 The English Patient
1997 Titanic
1998 Shakespeare in Love
1999 American Beauty
2000 Gladiator
2001 A Beautiful Mind
2002 Chicago
2003 LOTR: ROTK

[Military family member]

Passion is already out on DVD. I rented it a few weeks ago.

[Military family member]

Super Bowl commercials are memorable not as a marketing ploy but because of the Super Bowl itself. The Super Bowls have been consistently the most watched event of any given year. Viewership is up so the cost of running commercials is up. With the higher costs and known audience, advertisers put more into these spots than they would spots for any other show.

Furthermore, studies show these ads have tremendous impact. The current mayor of my home town announced his his candidacy during the half-time of the super bowl. It took him from a unknown to defeating the incombant in the primary by almost 3 to 1 in only three months. He went on to destroy the other candidate in the general election. Cost him a ton of money, but he didn't have to spend any more.

[Military family member]

I also found it on Amazon

[rintense]

The Oscars jumped the shark the year that Titanic won best picture, mainly for showing the movie actresses and Celine Dion all wearing that heart of the ocean necklace.

[Captain Peter Blood]

No I call 2001 daring, bold and innovative and I saw that picture when it came out as a kid. But that picture was also mainstream and not an Art House flick.
Remember what the late great Harry Cohn of Columbia said about movie critics, "They can tell you how to do it, but they can't F'ing doing it themselves"
Most critics look for something that is not there, Perfection, these people don't look for entertainment, which is what most people want out of a movie.

[Miss Behave]

"Passion is already out on DVD. I rented it a few weeks ago."

Yes, thanks. My post (and kellynla's prior to mine,) was that I was going to purchase the DVD of "The Passion" on the day of "The Oscars."

Voting my feelings about "The Oscars" with my pocketbook.

[dfwgator]

Master and Commander was nominated for Best Pic last year. Deserved to win, but didn't.

I loved that pic, and I am still holding out hope for a sequel, but I question if the lackluster Box Office it did will warrant it, it's a shame.