Oscar's filter: Worldview, not artistic merit, helps unpopular films dominate the Academy Awards

Nine films are competing for the Best Picture award to be handed out at the 2012 Academy Awards extravaganza on Feb. 26—and the average box office gross of the nominees is one of the lowest in the last 20 years. Only one of the nine, The Help, could be considered a genuine hit. And, as with popular nominees of the previous two years, few industry insiders give it much chance of winning. (One Oscar betting site currently pegs its odds at 33 to 1.)

Since underrepresentation of crowd-pleasers prompted the Academy's decision in 2009 to have up to 10 Best Picture nominees each year rather than five, the natural question when sizing up this year's race is, what gives? The answer lies in a story that shows how worldviews make a difference both in making movies and choosing winners.

Let's start with that expansion decision, which followed years of sliding Oscar night ratings. The president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Sid Ganis, said in a press conference that the Academy's goal was to expand the playing field for worthy films: "Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going to allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize."

Yet while the move wasn't without precedent (prior to 1943, the Best Picture category often included as many as 12 nominees), many skeptical industry watchers surmised that while a desire to cater to the movie-going public played a part in the Academy's decision, the Academy had been shamed into it.

The 81st Academy Awards four months earlier saw the snubbing of The Dark Knight, one of the most financially successful, critically acclaimed films of the last decade: It was the highest-grossing movie of 2008 and also received a 94 percent positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes, a website that averages the scores of film critics across the country. It received neither Best Picture nor Best Director nominations. Instead, less-regarded films like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Reader, which received only 72 percent and 62 percent positive averages, respectively, and grossed only small fractions of The Dark Knight's haul, made the cut.

Speculation that its popularity and superhero subject matter caused Oscar voters to diss The Dark Knight sparked widespread outrage across the blogosphere. Awards Daily, in a piece titled Oscar Shoots Self in Foot, wondered what criteria could have possibly accounted for the Academy's choice. "They don't think about ratings, they don't think about critics, they don't think about the public anymore (they certainly used to). So what do they think about?" wrote Sasha Stone. The Chicago Tribune's Marc Caro warned that Oscar might be flirting with irrelevance: "When the Academy denies top recognition to such critically and popularly beloved movies as The Dark Knight and Wall•E ... it risks confirming the suspicions of those who think it has grown out of touch with mainstream tastes."

During the question-and-answer session following his 2010 announcement of the Best Picture expansion, Ganis admitted, "I would not be telling you the truth if I said the words 'Dark Knight' did not come up."

The new, enlarged 2010 ceremony featured indie productions like The Hurt Locker and An Education going head-to-head with crowd-pleasers like Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, and Up. The widely publicized insider wisdom was that Avatar, based on the seismic impact it had on the entertainment landscape, stood a good chance of winning, and the other three nominations were pure audience bait with little to no hope of taking home the big award. In the end, all the big box-office players lost out to the low-budget war drama, The Hurt Locker (which made less money at the box office than any Best Picture winner in modern Oscar history), and 5 million more viewers tuned in.

Why did that happen? Britain's Daily Telegraph argued that the Academy refuses to "bow cravenly to box-office success; instead it rewards serious, accomplished filmmaking." But here's another suggestion: Filmmakers with the talent and resources to make excellent movies (which usually means movies that treat ideas seriously) are choosing themes that the broad swath of Americans find uninspiring if not outright offensive.

Think about Best Picture nominees that also have big box-office numbers. They tend to be films in which the main characters struggle to overcome either their own inner weaknesses or outer obstacles to achieve a specific moral ideal. Gladiator, Erin Brockovich, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Juno, Up, Inglourious Basterds, Seabiscuit, Slumdog Millionaire, The Departed, Avatar—all of these high-grossing Best Picture contenders of the last 10 years, whether you ascribe to their worldview or not, present a fixed concept of virtue. Character development and the subtext of the story serve to reinforce, not deconstruct, that concept.

Take last year's big winner, the natty, quintessentially aristocratic The King's Speech. For the good of his country King George perseveres to overcome his stutter and thus deliver a speech that uplifts and steels the hearts of his people during a war. Though it bore none of the usual markings of a movie likely to top $100 million, word of its excellence spread, and it eventually became a bona fide blockbuster. This year's sleeper hit, The Help, in which a young white journalist helps black maids in the segregated South speak out against oppression, followed a similar (indeed, even more dramatic) trajectory, as did 2009's The Blind Side, in which a wealthy family adopts an impoverished teenager. (It goes without saying that, though a conflicted character, The Dark Knight stands with those who battle on behalf of unconditional morality.)

The films Oscar voters have tended to award in recent years, on the other hand, frequently have themes of inner uncertainty and lack of a fixed moral compass. The characters may start out clutching onto an ideological ideal, but events of the story conspire to show how misguided or naïve they have been in trying to consistently apply that ideal to the vagaries of life.

For example, The Hurt Locker, while an excellent film, features soldiers unsure of their role in the Iraq War, questioning whether they fight because their cause is just or because they love the rush that comes from combat. The Descendants, one of the favorites to win Best Picture at the 84th Academy Awards on Feb. 26, follows a man whose concept of marriage and family is decimated after he discovers his comatose wife had been cheating on him. He must learn, through blow after blow to his ego and his notion of what it means to be a parent, to accept new ideals, drawing wisdom from his teenage daughter and her pot-smoking boyfriend. When one minor character tries to apply an overarching virtue—forgiveness—to the distressing situation, she is portrayed as something of an embarrassment.

The 2010 indie nominee, The Kids Are All Right, which superficially made the case for same-sex parenting, featured partners who, along with cheating and lying to each other, are unsure of their sexual feelings and unsure whether those feelings are good or bad. Besides the inessentiality of fathers, the only moral ideal the film leaves its characters with is that acknowledging their uncertainty and slogging on despite it is better than fixing on a single definition of marriage and family.

Though not a Best Picture nominee, The Iron Lady (for which Meryl Streep is considered the frontrunner for Best Actress) serves as perhaps the best illustration this year of how a filmmaker's thematic choices may keep the public away from a movie they would otherwise have great interest in.

The basic facts of Margaret Thatcher's life are these—a lower-middle-class grocer's daughter struggles to win acceptance in the male-dominated Tory party of the 1970s before going on to become first leader of her party and then prime minister of Great Britain. During her time in office she triumphs over her political rivals, governs her country to renewed economic prosperity, and collaborates with other world leaders to help end the Cold War.

It would not have taken a hagiography to make a movie about Thatcher that resonated with American moviegoers. But it would have taken the perspective that Thatcher deeply believed in her stated political and moral ideologies, and that her dedication to them was what drove her to overcome all obstacles. Instead, in between showing a young Thatcher as blindly enthralled by politicians as other young girls were by the Beatles, director Phyllida Lloyd shows Thatcher's motivations and her own feelings about her goals to be suspect.

Told through the conceit of Thatcher looking back on her life while enduring the hectoring of her now-deceased husband, she considers that it may have been ambition rather than righteous passion that drove her: She quietly grieves what her triumphs may have cost her. In the end, the ideologies the Iron Lady stands on are shifting sand—perhaps not worth her lifetime of dedication. No wonder, despite its brilliant acting and riveting subject, the film failed to win much attention from moviegoers.

As in the case of The Iron Lady, filmmakers don't necessarily have to believe in absolute moral values to draw audiences, but if they want to make movies that make money for something other than mammoth spectacle and genre pandering, they should probably create characters who do. If Academy members want to draw more viewers to their TV screens next year, they might give more attention to well-made movies that feature crusaders, caped or otherwise.

Sl is completely engrossing. I’ve not heard it described as boring before. There was nothing like the Liquidation of the Ghetto scene in any other American film. The closest referent to SL is the Polish filmmaker A. Wajda’s ‘War’ Trilogy from the 1950s. The production designer from SL actually studied with Wajda. Personally I find ‘Star Wars’ boring.

What did you think of Tree of Life?

I thought it was wonderful, but it was hard to describe to people and I didn't recommend it because it was so "strange" a movie. And no one could believe I could like a movie with Sean Penn.

Found it lyrical, like a poem where most movies are like novels. I'm not even into "artsy fartsy" movies, but this wasn't artsy, it was art.

There was a whole thing on the Warsaw ghetto, I remember watching with my mom. Can’t remember if it was part of the Holocaust mini-series or some other “event TV” but liquidating ghettos had happened before. And sorry but SL is boring as hell, largely because it had all been done before. Maybe if I’d never seen anything on the Holocaust before it would have been interesting, but if you’ve seen anything on it before the whole movie is “been there done that”.

I didn’t say I got bored easily, I said I got bored by movies that are painfully unoriginal. Yes the look and feel is different, but the STORY is the same old boring seen it once seen it a dozen time Hollywood Holocaust movie, that’s why it’s boring. That’s why so many Spielberg movies are boring, he does brilliant directing in the service pedestrian stories. He takes the same ol cookie cutter stories everybody else does and does them better than anybody else, but in the end it’s still the same ol cookie cutter stories everybody else does. The difference between a Spielberg movie and a Bay movie (most of which Spielberg produces) is that Spielberg actually can direct, but once you get below the surface they both make the same pap.

Actually there are quite a lot of Hollywood Holocaust movies, even before SL. That mini-series spawned a bunch. And no one remembers most Spielberg movies. Yeah Close Encounters was great, that was back before Spielberg really got hooked on the cookie cutter. That was in the 80s when he totally went to hell. Somewhere in the 80s he realized that he could throw any crap up there and it would make tons of money. Hell even Hook, which even you agree is a piece of crap, made 300 million bucks. Once he figured out just how little originality and story he needed to make ridiculous cash it was all downhill. And that’s why while many of us fondly remember his great movies like Jaws and Encounters when you bring up stuff like Color Purple and Empire of the Sun and Always and Minority Report (which I actually like the first 135 minutes of) the general movie audience says “that was a Spielberg? I don’t even remember if I saw it”. He used to make great movies, he still has all the skills to make great movies, but he doesn’t make great movies anymore, now he very skillfully directs crap, very lucrative crap, but crap.

‘Empire of the Sun’ was a notorious flop which has gained something of a reputation over the years. I like it. But E.T. is a great film (in its original version). Can you name some of those pre SL Holocaust films? And no ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ doesn’t count. I remember a TV film called ‘Escape from Sobibor’ (which was quite good actually) but nothing that dealt with every multiple aspects of the experience. EFS was basically a suspense/action film.

E.T. early 80s, hadn’t really gone all the way down the path yet. I always though the movie was kind of annoying, and it certainly started a lot of the trends he gets hit for (mouthy kids, lack of risk, simplistic story, trite), but I can understand why people like it.

Yeah The Diary of Anne Frank does count, along with: Playing For Time, Remembrance of Love, Sophie’s Choice, The Wall (this I think is the Warsaw Ghetto movie I referred to earlier), The Scarlet and the Black. And that’s just 1980 to 1983.

E.T. was pretty risky actually. Films about children (pre-teens) hadn’t been big box office since the mid 1960s. E.T. started the trend for better or worse. Spielberg’s friends thought he was wasting his time making a ‘Disney-like’ film (not a compliment back then) which would only play to little kids and their grandma.

Pink Floyd’s The Wall? ‘Anne Frank’ (the play and the films) obviously doesn’t address what SL deals with. They could be hiding from anything really. Sophie’s Choice had only brief flashbacks and again deals with one person’s story as opposed to a general feeling for the events. Again stuff like that and Playing for Time deal with ‘one Jewish pesron/family’ and not the economic reality and basis which SL has long with considerable breadth.

I don’t think it was risky. Sure those type of movies hadn’t made fat cash in the 70s, but it was a 10 million dollar movie to make, didn’t need to make fat cash. Even if it had only played to little kids and their grandma it would have made a profit. had he spent a hundred million making it that would have been a risk. The big problem to me, even when it came out and I was age 11, was how simple it was. The characters are two dimensional at best, ET is the animation embodiment of Deus Ex Machina (he can heal the dead, come back from the dead, make a bike fly, turn a Speak-and-Spell into a both a universal translator and a subspace radio). He went from making complex interesting movies with characters I’d love to meet in the real world (then and now, by age 11 Jaws was already firmly entrenched as my favorite movie ever) to a big eyed alien and a crying Drew Barrymore. I suppose for “normal” kids (ones that weren’t already addicted to Jaws and Close Encounters) it was a good movie, but to me it was Disney-like, slightly less insulting than The Apple Dumpling Gang, but mostly only because it was better directed.

No The Wall based on a John Hersey Novel dealing with the Warsaw Ghetto. Anne Frank addressed a lot of what SL deals with, you’ve got Jews getting slaughtered and somebody risking their life to save one. They COULD be hiding from anything but that holds for SL as well. SL deals with ONE person’s story. You’re picking and choosing and wiggling for nuance. Face reality: all holocaust movies are basically the same. Some are better executed than others, but like I told you DAYS ago the story is functionally identical, which makes them repetitive and boring once you’ve already seen more than half a dozen. And none of your silly wiggling will change that basic fact.

If you want to be precise then E.T. was Christian allegory. He appears in a manger (garage), heals the dead, performs miracles(flying), dies, is resurrected and finally ‘ascends’ in front of his followers. It’s also a poetic meditation on childhood (like the great early Disney features like Bambi and Pinnochio).

You’re using a broad brush with the Holocaust stories. Elie Weisel’s Night isn’t about the same thing as ‘Death Fugue’. ‘Anne Frank’ is banal and limited middlebrow moralizing. The way that she and her family are depicted as a normal every day middle American family is just pandering and offensive. The 1959 film version is especially insufferable. SL has a subtext of how something like that could be depicted (a conversation that Neeson and Kingsley have about ‘creating a new language’). It’s a complex film experience (albeit flawed) that’s filled with jaw dropping sequences that can be watched just for their own value. The John Williams music is also great btw. He conducts it at virtually all of his concerts and the soundtrack is listenable all on its own.

ET is overly simplistic and kind of insulting. Especially given the movies that it came after. The character depth is what always got me, in Jaws all of the characters, even the ostensibly bad people like the Mayor, are fully realized and interesting, you feel they could be actual people and they might be fun to talk to. In ET all of the characters are cardboard cutouts, ET is the only one you get any sense of back story on, the rest might as well be in a commercial. And what makes the Spielberg career frustrating is that in the 30 years sense more of his characters are like the ones in ET than the ones in Jaws.

I am using a broad brush, doesn’t make it not true. Sorry but for me SL has no jaw dropping sequences and is instead made 1090% of sequences stolen from other movies. I suppose the audacity of all that theft might give me some pause if it wasn’t from Spielberg, but by the end of the 80s that’s all he did. John Williams music is always great.

E.T. adheres to the point of view of the Henry Thomas character. It’s seen from his perspective...hence before the final sequences, the only adult seen from the waste up is his mother.

All films about historical events have events ‘stolen’ from other films. That’s silly. SL has been praised in virtually every quarter for sequences of astounding precision and impact.

You can make a movie from a 10 year-old’s perspective and still give the characters depth. By age 10 kids comprehend that people have pasts. Which is the big problem with the ET characters, they have none, they spawned forth seconds before the camera rolled, no back story, no discernible motives, they’re just there to be there.

The problem for SL isn’t that some events are stolen it’s that EVERY SINGLE SCENE is stolen. That’s why it’s ridiculously boring, and why you’re weaseling around this painfully obvious fact is even more boring. Face facts or walk away.

E.T. nailed what living in the suburbs in the early 1980s was like at that age. I was that age back then.

Face facts that you disagree with an overwhelming majority of film-goers and critics who loved SL and found it riveting and no it’s not because people feel obliged to be positive about a film dealing with that subject.

Being 11 and in the burbs when ET came out I can say irrefutably that ET bore no resemblance what so ever to my life. It was Spielberg’s oft repeated 100% false degrading and frankly insulting fantasy of suburban life. If your life was like that I feel sorry for you because really the life Spielberg depicts as typically suburban would suck. No parental love, no guidance, just foul mouthed brats running lose in a messy home. He really has issues with suburbia, it’s sad how many people think his depictions are accurate.

I’m perfectly comfortably disagreeing with the majority, they like Madonna, they’re usually full of crap. Meanwhile there’s actually plenty of critics out there that say much worse things about SL than I ever have. At least I never called it kitschy melodrama, though I won’t disagree. And given how few Holocaust movies get bad reviews ever I’m sticking to the idea that majority of the praise is because if you say something bad about them everybody gets to call you a Nazi. Notice how most of the people that do say bad things about SL have bigger Jew cards than Spielberg, hard to call the director of Shoah a Nazi.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.