I've been reading several articles addressing the impact of the recession on the Oscars that seem to be in the same vein as Gia's financial crisis post (and Jim's response). A.O. Scott has a rather cynical take on the sagging award show this year. Halfway through the article, Scott writes, "Less through the ambitions of the academy itself than through a combination of entertainment-media overkill and film industry anxiety, the Oscars have taken on a cultural and economic importance that they can’t possibly sustain and were never meant to have in the first place." Womp womp. He gives a detailed lamentation on the low viewership of Oscars this year as well, at one point stating, "Offered an exquisite delicacy like 'The Reader,' Americans flock to, um, 'Paul Blart: Mall Cop.' Apparently you’d rather watch an overweight shopping center guard chase bad guys than watch an illiterate concentration camp guard have sex with a teenager. What is wrong with you people?"
The economically affected Oscars (as an event) also ties in to this other article I read about the Oscars themselves not carrying the same weight they used to, in terms of cementing the recipient's career through increasing creative autonomy and fatter paychecks. Variety editor Peter Bart cites Pulp Fiction for Quentin Tarentino and Good Will Hunting for Matt Damon and Ben Affleck as past examples of receiving the "Oscar bounce." Acknowledging a few exceptions, he continues his argument--"Tarantino's been busy, but we haven't seen much work from Bennett Miller ("Capote"), Taylor Hackford ("Ray"), Peter Weir ("Master and Commander") or Spike Jonze ("Being John Malkovich") since their moments in the sun." The list continues with actors for whom this lack of Oscar bounce holds true as well (Bart does not refrain from a small jab at purpotedly retired actor Joaquin Phoenix). However, "the bottom line is that the Oscar is really no longer about big paychecks or even big pictures. Robert Downey Jr. has a whole new career thanks to "Iron Man," but the Academy apparently would never lavish an Oscar on a film that entertained that wide an audience. Given the present proclivities of Academy voters, skeptics doubt whether "Titanic" would have managed a nomination." Echoing A. O. Scott's resigned tone, Bart concludes, "The Academy has done much to enhance the movie industry both in terms of money and mythology. But maybe not as much as it did a generation ago."
Scott's article also addresses the concept of pre-packaged formulas we discussed in class last week--though less for what makes a box-office success, and more for what gets an Oscar nomination (which then translates to increased box-office numbers)--and the ethicality of that system:
"What unites these [nominated] movies is Quality — not as a designation of merit, but rather as a brand. Whether or not particular films qualify as successful works of art, the most important thing is that they be marketed successfully as art films, not in the old sense of being difficult or esoteric but in the tautological new sense of being the kind of movie that might qualify for an award.
And the kind of movie that does best is one that manages to blend art-house or “indie” cachet with old-fashioned populist appeal, combining a degree of originality with reliable and recognizable genre elements. That formula, which worked last year for “No Country for Old Men” — a western and a heist movie as well as a prestigious literary adaptation — has been wielded with particular success by Fox Searchlight, distributor of “Slumdog Millionaire.”
For four of the last five years Searchlight has had a best picture nominee that manages to be both a scrappy little underdog and a specimen of an established mainstream breed. “Sideways” was a buddies-on-the-road comedy. “Little Miss Sunshine” was a family-on-the-road comedy. “Juno” was a teenage romantic comedy. And “Slumdog” is a twofer: a coming-of-age comedy and a fast-paced crime drama.
These are likable movies, and it’s hard to begrudge them their success. But why should an industry award be the measure or the spur of that success? More to the point, why should the inability of other movies to occupy the narrow middle ground of Oscar-worthiness be taken as failure?"
No comments:
Post a Comment