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

[Sam Cree]

Have any Martin Cuz Smith novels been made into movies?

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "What was the cut-off for you?"

When "Out of Africa" won when "Ran" was clearly the better movie. Hollywierd is racist.

[DoughtyOne]

On the Laura Ingraham show yesterday Monday morning, Michael Medved was talking about the demise of Johnny Carson. He mentioned that Carson's following was so strong that the wedding of Tiny Tim drew more watchers than this year's Academy Awards ceremony will.

Wow, that sure put the Academy in the proper perspective for me.

[fanfan]

The Oscars are supposed to be about what are the best in each category, not which are the most popular (that would eb the People's Choice Awards). Of course, "best" is a very subjective term, and the choices reflect heavily on the voters' states of mind and biases.

Shouldn't the 'academy' choose films that did well? Shouldn't they at least try to pretend to be in touch with their customers?The writer is correct about this much, it's an incredibly powerful movie, and for the academy to ignore it, well, if we needed any more proof.....}-(

IMO, if The Passion had been about any other historical or mythical person, the left would have shoved it down our throats.

[Fred Hayek]

The Awards jumped the shark long ago, when "Hearts and Minds" got the "best documentary", in fact a propaganda piece for Hanoi. Upon accepting the award, the directors' speech praised the Khmer Rouge for taking over Cambodia. I was a kid then, and my folks saw me giving the bird to the TV and saying things like ******* Commies, go back to ******* Hanoi". The reaction was What is that all about? I said "Just wait and watch." A few years later was the news of the genocide in Cambodia.

[fanfan]

Each category is nominated by their own. Actors for actors, directors for directors. No commitee meetings to decide. Secret ballots that go righ tto a private accounting firm that counts em up. No deals made amongst groups of people. One group has no control over how another votes.

*snicker*

Come on, you're saying they don't talk? There's no politics involved?

[Borges]

A few people may talk with each other but there are almost 6000 members. They don't communally decide anything.

[Borges]

Sarcastic? Ran was the better film but it won the Foriegn Language cateogory.

[Liberty Valance]

I've always wanted to see Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" made into a movie. Guess that will never happen.

[ml/nj]

The Oscars are supposed to be about what are the best in each category

What was the best documentary of the past decade?

(Clue: It didn't win an Oscar.)

ML/NJ

[kevkrom]

I'm not defending the Oscars, I'm just pointing out that criticizing the nominations based on the relative film popularity is a strawman. In fact, my next statement pointed out that the process is highly subjective, and the resulting nominations say a lot about the voters, and not so much about the films, per se.

[Mark in the Old South]

Re: "Sarcastic?"

Usually
But not this time "Ran" is one of my all time favorite films. Along with Gibson's masterpiece it out did "Out of Africa" in every way. It was based on "King Lear" and the performances were the best I have ever seen. The woman who got revenge on her father-in-law was without a doubt the most memorable. Pity some people can not get past subtitles.

[Captain Peter Blood]

Look I used to run a video store and I have seen and been deluged at times with advance screeners of all types of movies including Art House pictures.
I have found most of the Art House type films overblown, boring and pretentious. Now I like very offbeat films and I have no trouble finding them, although most of those types are not nominated for the Oscars.
Most film critics do not write for the everyday person just looking to be entertained. Most of them think they are writing for the New York Times or heaven forbid the Village Voice or some other overblown elitist snob Eastern , L.A. or even worse San Francisco paper with pretensions of grandeur.
I don't take any of these critics seriously and can find and make my own decisions on what to watch.
Granted there is once and awhile a gem picture out there worth publicizing but not very often. Most of it is absolute trash.

[Orca]

Oscars = ego display = emetic = projectile vomiting. So, I don't watch in order to protect my TV, floor, and toilet.

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

It's pointless to cry that Passion of the Christ wasn't nominated for best picture. It didn't even qualify. It's not in ENGLISH or any other language commonly spoken on the planet today.

[Charles Martel]

I've always wanted to see Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" made into a movie. Guess that will never happen.

I've wanted to see that one on the screen, too. I don't thing it's possible to squeeze a credible version in three hours - but it would make a fine miniseries. Of course, the book begins with some Muslims blowing up a Soviet oil refinery, IIRC, so that'd have to be revised to avoid hurting anyone's feelings.

Come to think of it, I'll just read the book again. Hollywood can only diminish it.

[finnigan2]

"What was the cut-off for you? Driving Miss Daisy, Rain Man or The Last Emperor?"

- Rain Man.
Dustin Hoffman sleepwalked through this movie showing no more emotion than a slack jawed Mongoloid on Prozac and still won Best Actor. After that, I realized that the Awards were nothing more than a PR promotion and I stopped watching.
It's one thing to be taken for a fool by the "Academy" each year by watching this over hyped circus, it's quite another to really be one by doing so.

[Mamzelle]

While I never really wanted the Passion to be on the Oscar "Red Carpet"-- this might be a good year to boycott the Oscars just to let Gomorrah know we noticed. Nobody turn the TV on, period, for the time that the Oscars are on? Wonder how that'd work.

[Borges]

Uum OK. Calling people with who's taste you disagree snobs doesn't go very far. A critic can only say they think about a movie not what they think you want them to think. One of my favorite films of all time is 2001: A Space Oddyssey which you would probably call "overblown, boring and pretentious." It's just a matter of taste.

[Borges]

He was playing a withdrawn mentally ill man!