On July 4, 1996, I can remember standing outside and waiting in line for three hours at Sandy Movies 9 to see Independence Day. After coming out of that movie, I felt like it was the greatest movie of all time. The movie went on to make $816,969,268, which at one point was the second-highest worldwide gross of all-time. I couldn't wait to see The Oscars in a few months to watch Independence Day win the Oscar for Best Picture. Six months later I found out that Independence Day was not even nominated for Best Picture. I was dumbfounded. That year a little known film called Titanic won Best Picture.
So why don't the most popular ($) movies at the box office transfer over to success at The Oscars? (Besides Titanic) This year's Best Picture went to No Country for Old Men (a great movie, by the way) and it is the only movie of the 2000 decade to gross under $2 million in its opening weekend to win Best Picture. The most popular movie of 2007 was Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End and it made $960,996,492 worldwide.
My second question about The Oscars has something to do with the past few years of Best Picture nominees and winners. Why are all the nominees and winners now comprised of movies about a controversial subject? Do you not agree? Let me list for you the past three years of nominees and winners. (Winners in bold)
2005
- Crash - racial and social tensions in Los Angeles.
- Brokeback Mountain - complex romantic and sexual relationship between two men in the American West from 1963 to 1983.
- Capote - biographical film about Truman Capote, an openly gay Southern author with his weaknesses for fame, alcohol, and attention.
- Good Night, and Good Luck - portrays the conflict between veteran radio and television journalist Edward R. Murrow and U.S. Senator Joe McCarthy.
- Munich - the Israeli government's secret retaliation after the 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes.
The Departed - a mob boss plants his protege as an informant within the Massachusetts State Police.- Babel - 4 interlocking stories all connected by a single gun all converge at the end and reveal a complex and tragic story of the lives of humanity around the world and how we truly aren't all that different. Stories about illegal immigration, death, and rejection.
- Letters from Iwo Jima - portrays the Battle of Iwo Jima from the perspective of the Japanese soldiers.
- Little Miss Sunshine - a family's trip to a children's beauty pageant. Story involves homosexuality, suicide, and drugs.
- The Queen - focuses on the differing views in how to deal with the death of Princess Diana.
No Country for Old Men - tells the story of a botched drug deal and the ensuing cat-and-mouse drama. - Juno - teenage pregnancy - abortion or adoption?
- Atonement - British romance that spans several decades. A 13-year-old, irrevocably changes the course of several lives when she accuses her older sister's lover of a crime he did not commit.
- Michael Clayton - chronicles the attempts of an attorney to cope with a colleague's apparent mental breakdown and the corruption and murderous intrigue within a major client of his law firm that was sued in a class action case involving toxic agrichemicals.
- There Will Be Blood - story of a silver-miner-turned-oil-man on a ruthless quest for wealth.
You know that The Dark Knight isn't going to win Best Picture, even though it set all those records. Although I will guarantee you that Heath Ledger wins Best Supporting Actor.
35 comments:
Yeah! First to comment on this. I'm a big movie fan. My family is too. Anyway back to the point, before I got done reading your post, I was thinking about "The Dark Knight" . Amazing movie, but it will hardly get any recognition at the Oscars with the exception of Heath Ledger (who deserves it and more).
I guess this is cos the Oscars look for more than just entertainment and making bank at the theaters. They look at movies that depict a deeper meaning as well as the issues that face our society. They are the Nobel Prizes for movies.
I absolutely agree with them. Those movies are mind blowing: the acting, directing, production, story lines, etc... Name it, they deserve the recognition and movie theater tickets are not going to determine their success.
I also get really excited about the Oscars and print out a list of the nominees so don't feel too weird. Anyway the Oscars are not about what movie was the most entertaining to the masses, a lot of people go to Madagascar and Hannah Montana in 3D but do you really think that films like that should be awarded Best Picture just because a lot people went to see them? No way. The films that win best picture are a reflection of the art and craft of filmmaking not crowdpleasers, and they usually deal with controversial issues, because controversial issues are harder to deal with script-wise, etc., than fairy tales or other formulaic stories. I loved The Departed and was ecstatic when it won best picture I also loved No Country for Old Men it was an amazing commentary about how the problem of illegal drugs has escalated and somewhat destroyed out country.
Well, I don't watch the Oscars because I never seem to watch the movies that they nominate. Most of them are pretty scandalous it seems. I also do not understand why they don't just nominate the best money maker films. But I guess it is probably because they are looking for the artistic value, but I'm not very artsy so I guess I wouldn't know. Besides for those who make the blockbuster films, the greater prize is making a lot of money, right?
The Oscars represent how the Film Industry wish to portray themselves to the public. They want films that seem artistic, but at the same time entertain lots of people. Not necessarily a film that does something for the first time, but they want it to be emotionally engaging on levels that action-films and brain-dead comedies can't.
Of course, they look backwards, so films that harken back to the golden age of Cinema (like "Gladiator," "Titanic" or "The English Patient") tend to win.
We could just forget that "Gladiator" won. Oh, and that obscure film about the short guy with the ring got 14 Oscars (best picture included). Ok, fine, that was only the third film that got fourteen Oscars, the other two only got a few each.
I think that Best Picture is going to movies that are different or have Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value (comms 300 anyone?). But do i think that they are all the hookie, overly artistic movies? i don't think so...
winners in past 20 or so have been hugely popular without being overly controversial. Such films include: driving ms daisey, forrest gump, braveheart, and who could forget, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. while others do include racey films, they are just going to films that are deep, not just visually stimulating.
Well don't all movies have controversy? Isn't that what a plot line is? Of course the movies with the most blood, drama,intensity and controversy are going to win. The way they portray that controversy is what makes those shows so good. Regarding human nature, people like to see that.
I agree with Aster Ruzindana that the Oscar is like Nobel Prize for movies. Therefore, commercial or entertainment movies can hardly be recognized there. I think that's why they call it the Academy Award, it's more about the judgment of the people in the field rather than public's choice. So I guess they have different standards than we do when it comes to valuing the movies.
Movies that make the highest gross seems to be movies that guarantee entertainment. The Oscars do not focus on sheer entertainment but factor in other aspects of the movie.
There are countless films that are produced that entertain, but the movies that are nominated for Oscars have more depth, and this means that they address issues that make the public uncomfortable or make the viewer think.
Sometimes the most entertaining and popular things aren't the best put together, or the best acted or shot.
Evidence of that are the youtube videos that have millions of hits that are shot on a webcam. Yes their popular, but do they merit awards...of course not.
Controversy sometimes necessitates the deepest and best acting that can occur, or the best script or the most persuasive parts...that is why I think they win.
The movies that win are the ones that are "artistically significant". They are looking for the exciting film that rakes in the dough but doesn't deal with any social issues. The ones that win are the ones that are less like movies and more like documentaries.
Unfortunately, Ledger deserves Best Supporting Actor. Speaking of controversial topics, our society seems to thrive off of it. When I watched Dark Knight I was disturbed by how excited people got about the Joker. He would do the most disturbing things imaginable, and the audience around me would just laugh and applaud. Some guy had a pencil jammed into his occular cavity by the Joker, and the people around me thought it was great. Sickos! You would think that accurately portraying a psychopath would disturb an audience, not get them giddy with enjoyment.
i am so not qualified for this post. i hate movies. but i think the ones that win are not usually the most deserving. i usually hear the ones that win are decent and all, but i do think it's kind of a way for everyone in hollywood to try and show how artsy and poetic they are. gag.
i think these movies won in great part because of really good acting. i feel a little unqualified to answer this question because i don't know how the winners of the oscars are chosen...but assuming i did, i would guess that the pattern of controversial films being winners probably has something to do with who is doing the choosing.
I think that it's because all of the members of the committee want to see something that is impacting the world at the present time. I'm really not sure why, but I do think that it is kind of weird.
box office earnings =/= a good movie.
the movies that win best picture show something about society and send a message (i think that's why they have so many social agendas, i.e. drugs, racism, teen pregnancy). they usually appeal to a specific audience and are "critically acclaimed."they have good actors, not lindsay lohan/paris hilton romcoms that nobody sees or cares about.
I think that most of the times the movies that make lots of money spend a lot of time on special effects and cgi and that kind of stuff and less time on story, acting, and originality. That is why I think the Oscars look at those movies more. It's easy for someone to go up and say cheesy lines (look at the star wars movies). And those movies will make a lot of money. I think that it's harder to make a movie that depicts these weird, unnatural or troubled characters.
I know where you're coming from, but the academy is made up of filmmakers and they award those who use "the art of filmmaking" best.
I'd just like to point out that Return of the King grossed over $1.1 billion at the box office and swept all its 11 nominations.
But I don't agree with the assumption that the academy is always right. Titanic sucked and that's all there is to it, who'd of thought it'd win 11 academy awards? Furthermore Dances with Wolves? Driving Miss Daisy? Unforgiven? They're not all bad movies, but I think there were better films those years that better deserved the award.
This is so true! I've noticed it and I'm curious myself to know why this is. Is it just because these movies are said to "break social barriers"? And Ledger totally deserves the award...
I'll be honest I don't think I've ever watched the Oscars...Oscars for you sounds like March Madness for my family. :) We're just not really movie people. We appreciate a good one now and again. I think the whole controversial pattern comes because our news is completely pessimistic. By moving this into the entertainment industry, I think the higher class movie muckymucks see understanding and artistically portraying controversy as something that sets them apart and makes their jobs as actors/actresses, producers, etc. worthwhile. (If not the money)
I also agree a lot of Best Picture movie winners are about controversial topics. But, I think because the issues these movies bring to light are so deep and relevant, I think that's why. These movies of controversy actually say something about humanity, about mankind.
Better to have Titanic win Best Picture than say, House Bunny.
In our entertainment culture, we want to be exactly that, entertained. The highest grossing movies are typically the most entertaining. The Dark Knight was very fun to watch because it is a story about one of the greatest comic book heroes ever. Even if there were terrible reviews for the movie, devout Batman fans would have flocked to the theaters to be loyal to their hero.
The movies that win awards, which usually talk about controversial topics, don't gross as much because they are harder to watch. They are not as entertaining. Awards today aren't given for "most entertaining" but rather for more stylistic and thematic elements. A movie might have very deep meaning and symbolism that wins an award, but that deep thought and emotion isn't why the majority of people watch movies.
I never agree with the awards given because the movies that win are usually boring or too intense for me to watch all the way through. I just want to be entertained.
The movies that make the most money are not always the ones that are the best. The ones that actually win the awards win for reasons other than the plot. Our generation constantly wants to be entertained. But the things we find entertaining are not always the best when it comes to the arts. The Oscars are always so much fun to watch, and as much as I loved "The Dark Knight" I am expecting few nominations.
It is interesting to note that comedies basically never snag the best picture award. It seems like the movies that make us cry or make us confused get recognized a lot more. I asked my brother about the Oscars, (who is in the film program here) and he thinks that most movies are definitely are the best for the given category. There is an amount of politics that go down during the voting process, however, he thinks that it is way better than a "viewer's choice" award because the majority of Americans don't know what a good movie looks like.
Interesting post, I also print off a ballot... The past years have seen many deserving winners, like "No Country For Old Men," "The Departed," and "The Lord of the Rings." All I can say is thank goodness that box office was the not way to determine the five films nominated for best picture: money does not a "best picture" make. Most of the best films are smaller, independent films that have are able to be controlled by the artist without the interference of the studio. They have a certain freedom that is conducive to great art; when a film like "Return of the King" has such uncanny success, it does so because it has an auteur at the helm with the support of the studio and their trust; hence, the most popular and deserving best picture winners are a blend of art and entertainment, or something that satisfies critics and moviegoers. Popular movies usually don't deserve nominations, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest" is a great example - entertaining, popular, made a ton of money - but it was not deep and was not particularly important. Controversial topics are interesting: when you don't have controversy, you get "Beverley Hills Chihuahua."
Oh, by the way - "The Dark Knight" actually has a good shot of more than just Ledger's nomination - it's favored by many to have a good shot of a best picture and best director nomination.
I think that controversial subjects get the most attention because they start conversations and make people think differently. I think that with people feeling like their lives in a cubicle is so boring, people are looking for drama and can find it with these controversial subjects. Also, these movies draw a bigger audience because they pull in passionate people, no matter what they believe on the controversy, they are passionate and want to be part of the discussion on whatever it is, so they see it and talk about it enough that others want to see it too.
I think the reason why these movies have been wining the awards is because they push the limit. They talk about things that we aren't comfortable talking about.
Film is such an art when it comes to the Oscars and it's all about celebrating the design and the beauty of film.
But whatever the topic is, it forces us to think about things we've never thought about and that is why they win awards, they push for social change.
The critics you vote for the awards are disenfranchised and elitist I think. They see how much a certain movie appeals to the masses and see that as kitsch, they are more refined than the average consumer. I think there is also the tendency to feel a movie cannot be complete and worthy of consideration if it's all warm and fuzzy and lacks any controversial subject matter.
The films that often win Oscars are social commentaries. They push the comfort levels of their audiences and are considered art. I understand this point of view, but sometimes it's also hard to see because these awards are determined by a committee and our views of what's noteworthy or entertaining are so subjective. We all have different opinions.
I feel like the films that win the Oscar for "best picture" do so for three main reasons: 1) their artistic merit, 2) the stories they tell, and 3) the big-wigs in Hollywood can vote for whomever the heck they want.
All of the films listed in this post didn't win Oscars because they are controversial, but because they tell compelling stories in beautiful and innovative ways.
If you make a movie about Batman, it will make a lot of money even if it is terrible (which Dark Knight was not). Box-office revenue should not be the measuring rod for determining a films greatness.
-Michael Williams
It comes down to talent. Just because Pirates of the Caribbean made almost $1 billion does not mean that it was an artistically good movie. As much as I liked it, I realize that the plot was weak and silly. And really besides entertainment what benefit was it to anyone? However, some of the recently nominated movies that might have made less money have been far superior in many other ways. The acting, story lines, cinematography, etc. was truly amazing...this is coming from a No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood Fan by the way. There are many things that make a movie good and being controversial isn't one of them in my opinion.
Oscars do bring some heat. Arent all movies these days dealing with a controversal issue, even independance day? Aliens taking over earth is that not a controversal subject? I beleive it is and im scared. By the Titanic is probably the best movie of all time. So its tough to argue that point.
Unfortunately box office sales don't translate to Oscars. I completely agree that they really should. If the public likes them then they should get the accolades and awards like an Oscar that show they are the best movie of the year. I think that really Hollywood has an agenda as usual. The list of movies which you pointed out have a hidden agenda doesn't surprise me. Unfortunately I think this will continue for years to come.
The reason why controversial stories dominate the awards is because controversy is popular. The soap-operas that were popular a few decades ago have been replaced by more sophisticated drama and this drama wins awards. It is an award show and everyone is never going to agree completely about the nominees and even less so- the winner. I think any advertising or journalism student will be able to tell you that sex, drugs, and sleaze sells and big business dominates the Oscars. As they say in journalistic circles, "If it bleeds in leads."
Post a Comment