2006: The year the OSCARS died?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:10pm

This week is a biggie for the guild awards -- traditionally a very good barometer of how the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will lean in their nominees for the Oscars.

The WGA and the PGA both announced today - and the news is: Oscar is going small this year...

CAPOTE, CRASH, GOODNIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, THE CONSTANT GARDNER all seem to be on level ground for a Best Picture nomination.

KING KONG, CINDERELLA MAN, MUNICH, GEISHA, all look likely to sit out on the big race -- indeed none of the big budget traditional Oscar fare seems to be showing up.

Interesting to me, when we are seeing front page stories in the LA TIMES about the steady decline in movie attendance, and the stagnating numbers at the box office.

Ten years ago, the complaint was that the Oscars never went "indie." Now, they seem to have the reverse problem.

While its nice to see smaller films recognized -- the industry seems to be forgetting that it is indeed a business.

Who is going to watch the Oscars in a year where the Best Picture line up could be: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, CAPOTE, A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, and CRASH?

The lowest rated Oscars in history means the lowest post Oscar rises at the box office - and the downward spiral continues...

It will be interesting to see if Hollywood will really have the balls to go for an all indie Oscars - or if they will realize that, as always, the Oscars have always been that celebration of populist entertainment. Especially when those are the movies that employ 75 percent of the industry...

To see the PGA/WGA noms -- check out www.Oscarwatch.com

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:12pm

Maybe this would inspire Hollywood to start making better movies.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:15pm

Regardless of having the balls I think it's time Hollywood realizes that some movie goers crave quality instead of much of the crap that the studios are putting out. I attend many screenings during a year of films that will never get distribution and many are wonderful works by gifted film makers. It's very sad to me.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:16pm

Well, I agree they need to do that...but if you are judging "best" by box office returns (something Oscar loves to do) -- you are looking at a potential line up for Best Picture nominees that collectively don't have the grosses of a single movie like NARNIA, HARRY POTTER or even KING KONG.

Hollywood needs to come up with better scripts for sure, but they also need to foster their industry better...

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:21pm

Well - I thought the Oscars were voted on by peers and not box-office reciepts. Understandably some are to believe that that which makes the most money must be best - but I think these people are a minority and have not even seen all the films before they are open for noms.

[Calvin]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:24pm

think it's time Hollywood realizes that some movie goers crave quality instead of much of the crap that the studios are putting out.

Yet sadly, both Fantastic Four and Yours, Mine and Ours did well at the box office. So, lesson maybe not learned.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:25pm

Cheez you are right, but its also very political.

If you are a member of the art direction guild, common sense says that its wise to vote for a film like KING KONG or NARNIA, because "big budget films" employ more craftsmen. And a film with more craftsmen that wins big at the Oscars insures that the industry will make other similar projects and you will in turn have a shot at greater job security.

If all Hollywood made were films like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and GOODNIGHT GOOD LUCK, a lot of people in the Hollywood Hills would be losing their swimming pools...

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:26pm

True Calvin, but I don't see those titles on any awards list yet...so maybe there is a glimmer of hope.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:32pm

It's amazing that both the WGA and the PGA went for the smaller films that are considered the best of the year.

However, the DGAs will likely be more in line with what the Best Pic noms will be. And the DGA and/or the Academy could easily say to hell with what everyone else has been honoring and nominate King Kong and Munich or whatever else they want.

It could be a year of the biggest shift between the precursors and the Oscars.

[lildogs]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 1:36pm

First of all, I would venture a guess that most people watch the Oscars to see the stars and what they wear. I watch them to see wh wins, catch the tributes, cry at all those who died this past year, and hope against hope that at least one winner will actually DESERVE it. So I'm not sure that the Best Pic nominees determine ratings THAT much. Having said that, I think it sounds like a great line-up and hardly the first time the Oscars went small--I remember 1996 had Fargo, Shine, Secrets and Lies, Jerry Maguire and The English Patient...not exactly a blockbuster list, though I'm sure Jerry Maguire turned a hefty profit.

There have been many Best Pics that were small--Casablanca, The Apartment, Marty, Annie Hall, Kramer vs. Kramer, Chariots of Fire...

And as it stands, I don't think King Kong or Munich is out of the race just yet.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 2:38pm

Well, one would hope the Academy won't let ratings affect their voting (aren't there enough factors?), but this is precisely why King Kong could get a nom.

[robbiej]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:14pm

I remember reading (and I could be wrong) that the year RETURN OF THE KING won all those awards, the Oscar ratings were down because it was such an unsurprising blowout that held no one's interest.

And BROKEBACK may be a small movie, but it's hard for me to believe that there are many people out there that have no concept what it is. It's seeped into our consciousness and our culture.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:15pm

You know, the controversy over Brokeback could lend to higher ratings. Maybe?

[badreligion]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:30pm

The Oscars are not meant to boost box office as a whole. And as for it appreciating indie films, lets not forget the "Secret and Lies" year where ALL the best picture nods were independently made. And so what???? It is quality not big budget films that nominations should be about. How dare you even make such comments. The films you mention are incredible and have been and need to be seen. You obviously do not know anything about appreciating fine art. Disgusting!!!!

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:44pm

Yes, we should keep in mind that these articles are just the speculations of journalists who have no greater ability than anyone on this board to speculate why ratings dropped in one year and soared in another.

I would say that it is good for film to go hot and cold with big budget films -- it makes sure the candy gets passed around, and it also makes sure that those with lots of money don't keep giving it to the same people over and over.

And it encourages those who work in art direction, and 3d animation to keep pushing themselves for better work.

It's a good year to bring down the scale of the noms, i think. Count me among those who will be surprised if King Kong gets a nod for best pic. Although, I'm still counting on Munich and Crash to get quite a few "surprise" nods.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 3:53pm

1. As with most kinds of academic study, those who are directly affected by any study should not be postulating and studying -- they are just too close to the center to know.

2. Even if you don't buy that, there are quite a few people who post on this board who ARE in the industry, DO work as production staff for the Oscars, and many who study the industry.

3. Predicting cause and effect isn't based on knowledge of an industry. It is based on knowledge of human nature and social trends.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 4:04pm

Yes, sir. Thank you, sir.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 4:44pm

From oscarwatch.com:

"No DVDs for Munich or Kong for PGA
Apparently, there weren't screeners sent to the Producers Guild for Munich or Kong, which meant that anyone interested in seeing it had to go to the theater. Well, you know how that goes. What is clear from the year's picks that they aren't voting for films that "made a lot of money," as was pointed out by Geek in the forums, as much as they have in the past but are going for the more critically acclaimed (except for Kong of course), which has been known to happen in their history but does not often happen. My Big Fat Greek Wedding got a nomination, for goodness sake.

How does this bode for the business of film? The great divide just gets wider and wider. "

And the current list on their site is (top is most likely to win; * and + indicate noms and awards)

Best Picture:
Brokeback Mountain+**+++**
Walk the Line****
Good Night, and Good Luck*****
Crash****
Capote****
The Constant Gardener****
Munich*
King Kong**
Cinderella Man***
A History of Violence***
Match Point*
Syriana**

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:22pm

"No DVDs for Munich or Kong for PGA
Apparently, there weren't screeners sent to the Producers Guild for Munich or Kong, which meant that anyone interested in seeing it had to go to the theater.

Once again, proof that Universal (distributor of both KONG and MUNICH) is doing a terrible job marketing their films. I'm shocked that MUNICH didn't make the cut, but for KONG it was always a long shot, given its action-movie status. The true harbinger for the Oscars is tomorrow's DGA announcement, though, and both Spielberg and Jackson have been getting raves for their direction.

There's a strong correlation between Oscar ratings and the type of films that are nominated: there were huge rating spikes for both the TITANIC and RETURN OF THE KING Oscar ceremonies right after a year of abysmal viewership (1996'S ENGLISH PATIENT and 2002's CHICAGO), followed by another plummeting of the ratings (1998's AMERICAN BEAUTY and 2004's MILLION DOLLAR BABY).

I don't think that Oscar viewership affects employment in Hollywood, though; as the Oscars' importance goes down, so does their influence on what kind of movies get made. Will an indie-only Oscars ceremony force Hollywood to make better movies? I don't think so -- it didn't work after 1996, why would it work now? (And I think this year will be very similar to 1996; this year's JERRY MAGUIRE is WALK THE LINE, a conventional, relatively-successful flick, serious but innocuous enough for middle America).

My predictions for tomorrow's DGA and also for the Oscars:

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
GOODNIGHT AND GOOD LUCK
WALK THE LINE
CRASH
MUNICH

Updated On: 1/4/06 at 07:22 PM

[roquat]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 7:33pm

I can't think of a single film this year that was a completely unqualified hit with critics and the public in the way that LORD OF THE RINGS (all parts) was, except maybe CRASH (and it still did nowhere near the business of NARNIA, KING KING, et al). The biggest grossers this year were MR. AND MRS. SMITH, BATMAN BEGINS, and STAR WARS III: REVENGE OF THE SITH, or whatever it was called. You couldn't seriously give those things Oscar nominations, if the award is to mean anything. And most of the movies that were groomed for Oscars (GEISHA, RENT, MUNICH, arguably KING KONG0 hasn't taken off as expected. I hail this "indie" film revolution. Those films will turn out to have more staying power than the big noisy "blockbusters" anyway.

[Pinguin]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:06pm

Of course it is a bit difficult when EVERY single film nominated is an indie...but you have to look at the amazing quality of work that has been coming out of the indie circuit that has been ignored by the Academy -I'm glad that some of the films that are being considered are bit more risky. It's probably good that there be some sort of happy medium, but I'd rather have this result than a completely blockbuster set of nominations.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:08pm

But if they were to select a blockbuster, does it have to be WALK THE LINE? What a bland and safe biopic.

(Yes, I know the movie has its fans here. But it's hardly a picture I would hold up as one that helps define the year's achievement in cinema.)

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:12pm

Agreed. I found it rather bland, though that could be coming right off of Ray.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 8:31pm

Actually CRASH's reviews were very mixed. It's Metacritic score was only 69 with negative reviews coming from the New York Times, LA Times, NY Daily News, Miami Herald, San Francisco Chronicle, Salon, The Voice and several other sources.

Capote, Wallace & Gromit and Brokeback Mountain each had a slate a mostly positive reviews with only a handful of detractors and have done well on a small scale at the box office.

[roquat]

Posted: 1/4/06 at 9:14pm

Thank you. What I meant was that there hasn't been an obvious breakout hit that really invaded the public's consciousness and was also worthy of serious discussion (what the Hollywood statisticians call "water-cooler buzz.") CRASH, for good or ill, was one, and I think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN will be another, but that's it. The big blockbusters come and go without leaving an imprint (what could you really say about REVENGE OF THE SITH, other than rave about the special effects?) and the interesting movies are mismarketed or ignored and slip under the radar. That, I think, is the reason for the box-office slump, the Oscar blues, and this entire thread--the movies just don't seem to connect with our lives in ways that matter any more.