Oscar Schizophrenia

Based on a study of the last ten years of the Oscars, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences have decided to change their format yet again.  Just when the misguided idea of a top ten Best Picture line-up was starting to jell with the obsessives, a new ruling now states that their can be anywhere from five to ten nominees for Best Picture.  There's a nugget of wisdom behind this latest change, as now it's required for each nominee to earn five percent of #1 ballots in order to receive a nomination, thinking of course that with ten automatically each year, a few "lesser than" choices will slip through the cracks.  And I suppose there's the added spectacle of having to wait until nomination day to know just how films will be nominated for Best Picture.  The new ruling was formed from a study of the last decade of Oscar balloting that seemed to indicate that there were more than five "mathematically" movies that deemed worthy of the highest cinematic honor, but also with the ten that has been in the last two years of the ceremony, there might be less than ten.  Oh, what I wouldn't give to spend a couple of hours looking at their statistics...really, if any of my readers work for PriceWaterhouseCoopers, I can absolutely be trusted; just an hour...I promise.

The question is why?  Why the sudden change a mere two years after the top ten was reinstated?  And this is what worries me, for it feels after eighty-three years the Academy is unsure of itself and feels a need to respond to every criticism.  This is an institution that's supposed the highest film accolade in the land, deeply rooted in tradition, and loved or hated, the Academy sets the standard...why the sudden flaky growing pains.  Is it a response to last years line-up, or something bigger.  Last years nominees were:

• 127 Hours
• Black Swan
• The Fighter
• Inception
• The Kids Are All Right
• The King's Speech
• The Social Network
• Toy Story 3
• True Grit
• Winter's Bone

All in all a respectable line-up...not my top ten, but it's the Academy's top ten.  And actually a nice group of films, all which were respected both critically and commercially in their own rights.  There's hardly a feeling with last years top ten that there's an embarrassment in the mix (the winner on the other hand!), nor a major cause for an entire overhaul.  Last years ceremony was a muddled mess of execution, rightfully critically lambasted, but it hardly seems fit to undo something that the Academy fought so hard to do two years ago.

When the initial change occurred two years ago, there was instant criticism that it was a mere ratings ploy, a chance to get some blockbusters back in the mix, and unfairly or not it must have been seen a response to the snub of The Dark Knight the year before.  The Academy countered that the top ten would open slots to a more eclectic selection of films, with the hopeful inclusion of independent, animated, foreign and documentary movies.  And while two years may or may not be a big enough time-span to truly see that pan out, there's a nice sentiment (even only if was for press purposes) to that idea.  But the idea of now going for a short lived format to a seemingly anything goes format seems even a bit more desperate, like the Academy is willing to jettison nearly anything now to impress it's detractors...for example the animated feature category now can have from two to five nominees each year, having to pass the "quality" litmus test of its members.


The strange thing is that the Academy, even back when there were only five Best Picture nominees, still nominated the same type of Academy-based movies.  Widening or shortening the list still won't account for taste.  Perhaps The Blind Side (2009) wouldn't have received a Best Picture nomination without ten slots...is that so much better or worse than Frost\Nixon (2008) or Chocolat (2000) receiving one with only five slots?  And perhaps a wonderful, if hard-to-sell indie like Winter's Bone (2010) wouldn't have made it in last year without the cushion, would it now?

The Top Ten Analysis

Here, are as I see them, the pros and cons of the 10 Best Pictures and their chances of winning.




AVATAR
Pros:

• 9 Oscar nominations, the most of this year (tied with The Hurt Locker)
• Biggest box office smash of all time
• Golden Globe winner for Best Picture drama (the first ever for a science fiction film)
• Widespread nominations from many of the filmmaking disciplines (art direction, cinematography, editing, sound, music), as well as widespread love from the guilds.
• ABC would love for it to happen (i.e.-- let's boost those sagging Oscar ratings)
• James Cameron has crafted and undisputed game-changer of a film-- love it or hate it, it's a force to be reckoned with...

Cons:

• Widespread guild love didn't come from the actors branch (which is the largest portion of the Academy), nor the writers branch-- no film has won best picture without a screenplay or acting nomination since Grand Hotel in the 1930s.
• Some may not take it seriously-- the Academy is made up of stuffy, older film snobs, and genre films have never been their cup of tea.
• Neither has science-fiction films, despite two being nominated this year.
• It's the biggest box office champ of all time, that may hurt it, as much as it helps.
• James Cameron may be respected, but I doubt he's loved-- the Academy roots for it's friends.
• Cameron and team, already won for a game-changer in 1998; that may be enough.

THE BLIND SIDE
Pros:

• Uplifting message films are right up the Oscar's alley (Gentleman's Agreement; Kramer vs. Kramer; Forrest Gump; Rain Man)
• True story!
  
• Surprise big hit.
• Sandra Bullock's big year, with the media going gong crazy over her.

Cons:

• The quality of film-- many like it (even love it?), but is there much passion for it.
• Sandra Bullock?
• The liberal Academy may not stomach it very well.
• Sports movies never win the big prize, except for Rocky-- is this on that level?
• Wasn't nominated for a film editing Oscar, no film has won picture without a film editing nomination since 1980's Ordinary People.
• Picture and Bullock were the only nominations it got-- no director, no screenplay.
  

DISTRICT 9
Pros:

• Critically accalimed film produced by Peter Jackson.
• Introduces several fresh talents: director Neill Blomkamp and actor Sharlto Copely
• Nominated for film editing Oscar, a true must for serious picture contention.
• Widespread guild love-- it even won over the writers.
• It's a classic allegory cleverly disguised as genre film-- voters may appreciate the artistry.
• The movie wasn't expensive to make, but it doesn't look that way.
• Surprise big hit.
  

Cons:

• Sci-Fi-- the Academy doesn't get it, even when it's great (see: 2001: A Space Odyssey; Close Encouinters of the Third Kind)
• The film is fairly violent, I could see older Academy members getting turned off by it, or not watching it at all.
• No acting nominations, the actors are the biggest branch of the Academy.
• No nomination for direction.
  

AN EDUCATION
Pros:

• British-- the Academy lurves that (Tom Jones; Hamlet)
• Period Film.
• Got acting and writing nods.

Cons:

• Directed by a woman; that's never happened.
• It would be the lowest grossing best picture ever-- this is usually a fairly populist group.
• The actors and writers liked it, but no one else did apparently-- no film editing nomination-- no film has won picture without a film editing nomination since 1980's Ordinary People.
• No nomination for direction-- it's in the bottom five for sure.
• How many people have actually seen it?

THE HURT LOCKER
Pros:

• Nominated for most awards (tied with Avatar)
  
• Winner of the DGA award, the most common link to Best Picture.
• Winner of the PGA award, meaning the Producers liked it too.
• Widespread guild and tech love (cinematography, film editing, score, sound)
• Nominated for acting and writing-- the only film besides Inglourious Basterds and Precious to sweep all fields.
• Timely subject matter
• War drama-- the Oscars love war movies-- going all the way back to All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
• For the first time ever, a film directed by a woman is one of the front runners for best picture-- history making-- the Academy likes to do the right thing.
• Industry admiration for Bigelow.
• Press admiration for Bigelow.

Con:

• It would be the lowest grossing best picture winner ever!

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
Pros:

• Widespread guild love, garnering nominations for acting, writing, cinematography, editing, sound.
• Actors and writers love it (SAG Ensemble winner: think Crash)
• New found respectability for Quentin Tarantino--he's an auteur, and he's popular.
• War and period film, albeit revisionist.
• Surprise big hit.
• Harvey Weinstein is back the film (think: everything is the 1990s and Kate Winslet last year.)

Cons:

• Still a fairly polarizing film.
• Christoph Waltz is favored to win-- some may think that's enough.
• Harvey Weinstein.

PRECIOUS: BASED ON THE NOVEL "PUSH" BY SAPPHIRE
Pros:

• Based on a novel-- adapted screenplays win more often than originals.
• Received nominations for acting, writing and film editing-- widespread love.
• Decent box office, if a bit short than expected from metoric press coverage.

Cons:

• One of the most polarizing films of the year.
• Would be one of the lowest grossing best picture winners ever, probably the lowest with inflation.
• About African American women-- the Academy is sexist, and a bit racist sometimes.
• General momentum for the film has been downhill since wide release-- not a good sign.

A SERIOUS MAN
Pros:

• The Coen brothers are very respected in the Academy: Fargo; No Country For Old Men.
• Nominated for screenplay.

Cons:

• Picture and screenplay are all it got.
• No acting nominations-- the actors make up the biggest portion of the Academy.
• No film editing nominations-- no one has managed that since since 1980's Ordinary People.
• Would be the lowest grossing best picture ever.
• No director nomination-- it was in the bottom five for sure.
• Polarizing film-- many loved; equally many hate it.

UP
Pros:

• Beautifully realized, masterfully storytelling-- the quality is there, and I bet few will argue with that.
• Pixar is a venerable institution-- it's won lots of Oscars, but this is it's first best picture.
• Nominated for screenplay, sound, and score-- widespread academy appeal.
• Massive big hit.
  

Cons:

• It's animated, and the bias for them is no secret for Academy members, as unfair has it may seem to animation enthusiasts.
• It will likely win animated feature, why honor it here.
• No editing nomination-- not since 1980 and Ordinary People has that happened.
• It was surely in the bottom five, sadly.

UP IN THE AIR
Pros:

• Actors and writers movie for sure; actors make up the biggest part of the Academy.
• Favored for adapted screenplay-- most best picture winners are based on other material.
• Timely subject matter-- probably the timiliest of all ten nominees with the focus of losing jobs.
• George Clooney is very popular.
• Jason Reitman has been working this movie like crazy, but many may feels he's due after Thank You For Smoking and Juno.
• Nominated for best director (was most likely in the Top Five)
• Good Box Office, even if it never really became the Zeitgeist movie many thought it would.

Cons:

• Surprisingly no film editing nomination-- it's been twenty years since a film won without it, and many point that to the reason Brokeback Mountain lost to Crash in 2005.
• A loss of momentum.
• Many feel that Jason Reitman may have been over-working this.
  

By the Numbers

The Best Picture contenders by the dollars, I only mention because Juno crossed the $100 million mark this past weekend, basically doubling the competition.

Juno- $100,013,577
No Country For Old Men- $51,956,842
Michael Clayton- $41,653,439
Atonement- $37,850,799
There Will Be Blood- $14,746,644

stats from Box Office Mojo