By now I’m sure you’ve heard the news regarding the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences adding an “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film” category to the Oscars.
On the surface, the concept sounds ridiculous — shameless pandering to the glut of superhero and sci-fi spectacle films currently dominating box office receipts.
The academy tried to remedy the lack of “popular” movies contending for the top prize when they extended the number of “Best Picture” noms from five to 10 several years ago.
That remedy was apparently not enough.
My question is this: “Why is this even an issue?”
Personally speaking, I think this speaks to a systemic issue with the types of movies we are seeing made and marketed. Things like “cinematic universes” might be popular, but they are increasingly sucking up all the oxygen at the box office.
As a sci-fi/fantasy movie lover, I am happy that “geeks” are finally having their moment in the pop culture zeitgeist.
The question is whether “geekdom” — and the marketing drive to appeal to those demographics — is having a detrimental impact on the types of movies favored by audiences (compared to previous decades).
In the 1990s, a number of “popular” films were nominated — and won — the Oscar for Best Picture.
Here is a list of "popular" films that won the top prize in the 1990s:
1990 — “Dances With Wolves” — $424,200,000 (worldwide)
1991 — “The Silence of the Lambs” — $272,742,922 (worldwide)
1992 — “Unforgiven” — $159,018,007 (worldwide)
1994 — “Forrest Gump” — $677,945,399 (worldwide)
1995 — “Braveheart” — $210,409,945 (worldwide)
1997 — “Titanic” — $2,186,772,302 (worldwide)
Six of the 10 winners in the 1990s were films popular with mass audiences.
The 2000s started off in similar fashion. The 2000 film “Gladiator” ($475,640,427 worldwide) and the 2003 film “The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King” ($1,119,929,521 worldwide) won the Oscar for Best Picture in their respective years.
But things started to change a decade or so ago as increasingly “smaller” movies started winning the Oscar for Best Picture. Films like “The Artist,” “Birdman,” “Spotlight,” “12 Years a Slave,” “Moonlight,” and “The Shape of Water” weren’t particularly popular.
Is it a coincidence that the trajectory towards “smaller” movies dominating at the Oscars has happened during the decade-long rise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at the box office?
I love Marvel movies (I just purchased the 4K Blu-ray of “Avengers: Infinity War”). While I appreciate the MCU, it has created a world where sequels and spinoffs dominate more than ever before.
We saw three Marvel movies this year — all basically “chapters” in a giant story — released in February (“Black Panther”), April (“Avengers: Infinity War") and July (“Ant-Man and the Wasp”).
It’s hard to believe there was a time when movies like “Forrest Gump,” “Braveheart,” and “Gladiator” were “summer blockbusters.”
These days, it is a relative rarity to see a movie like “Dunkirk” released during the summer movie season.
Instead, we get a glut of sci-fi and superhero movies — made for an international audience — dominating the box office. The alternate summer fare is generally heavy on Judd Apatow-like “raunchy” comedies and low-brow horror movies.
I don’t want to diss the movies I love.
Since viewer habits aren’t likely to shift anytime soon — and since it is highly unlikely we’ll see a movie like “Forrest Gump” make a half-billion dollars again — you have to wonder if there might be some merit to having a “popular film” category at the Oscars.
I’m not suggesting it is particularly good solution, and it reeks of a desperate attempt to make the Oscars more relevant.
However, many of these box office behemoths are really well crafted. Are they being summarily ignored because they are bright, flashy popcorn movies?
Ultimately, it comes down to the movie. While popcorn movies like “The Martian” and “Mad Max: Fury Road” received best picture nominations in recent years, movies like “Ready Player One” and “Mission Impossible: Fallout” are unlikely to receive nominations in the top category.
Back in 2012, I loved the James Bond movie “Skyfall.” It was a beautifully drawn film. At the time, I told people I thought it deserved an Oscar nomination for best picture.
But because it was a sequel in a long running action movie franchise, it didn’t stand a chance.
For the record, I thought “Skyfall” was a far superior to “Oscar-bait” films like “Moneyball,” “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close,” “War Horse,” and “Midnight in Paris” — all best picture nominees that year.
Had there been a “popular film” category in 2012, “Skyfall” would have been included (and likely would have been the winner).
It is worth noting that the Academy has stated a film can be nominated for both the “Outstanding Achievement in Popular Film” and “Best Picture” categories. I don’t know how many dual nominees we’re likely to see.
While I’m not in love with the concept of adding an “outstanding achievement in popular film” category, I’m not against it.
There is an entire class of film — largely released between October and January — made for the express purpose of dominating awards season. Some of those films are excellent — others are mediocre.
But because they fit a certain “type,” some mediocre films receive nominations for the top prize (even when there are popcorn movies that are far better).
It might be nice to see films like “Blade Runner 2049” garner more recognition.
Previous post: Movie Review: "The Meg" is Crazy Fun
No comments:
Post a Comment