By RACHAEL GROESSLER
Let’s get one thing out of the way – you don’t have to tell me the history of the Academy Awards is littered with many sins of omission. Some years they get it hopelessly wrong – I’m looking at you 1994: Forrest Gump got Best Film over The Shawshank Redemption, Quiz Show, Four Weddings and a Funeral and Pulp Fiction.
They are partial to epics and musicals and can be parochial (Gwyneth Paltrow for Shakespeare in Love over Our Cate Blanchett for Elizabeth; there is no other explanation).
There’s a definite anti-comedy bias going on (so many examples, so little time) and, sometimes it seems as though objective analysis of a film’s artistic worth is the last thing on their minds. The Oscars can be subjective, personal, political and probably even factional. It’s like anyone’s workplace really but with gold art-deco statues, fabulous jewellery and broadcast rights.
As for trying to pick the winners, this can be guessed based on the hype around a film, the number of nominations, or the subject matter (like Kate Winslet said in Extras “do a Holocaust film – guaranteed an Oscar”…she then went on to win an Oscar for a Holocaust film, The Reader). The most accurate pointer is what has dominated the lead-up awards, of which there seems to be more and more every year. This year, it’s been changeable and, with a couple of exceptions, picking the winners is a bit tricky. But I shall do my best.
Top Comments
A reasonable run-down of the Oscars but I do have a few things I'd like to comment on in regards to the history of the Academy Awards.
1. "It was hoped that featuring blockbusters would make the awards more relevant to the TV audience." Hoped by whom? I've been reading analysis on Forbes for a few years now and actually the trend in the 1990s was towards blockbusters, whereas the 2000s have had more low budget films (for reference, check out Mark Hughes great piece for Forbes).
2. "...sometimes it seems as though objective analysis of a film’s artistic worth is the last thing on their minds." I could agree on some levels with this statement, but I actually think Forrest Gump won because of its artistic merits. Same with The Artist. The fact that the Academy Awards acknowledge so many different aspects of film also works in the favour of art - it's not all about blockbusters anymore (otherwise The Hurt Locker never would have won).
I'm all for Oscar's analysis and opinion, but I came to this piece thinking it was the former and found it was more the latter. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I'd known that from the start.
Edit: I just wanted to add that I think some of these predictions are spot on (though I definitely want Silver Linings Playbook to win Best Picture). While I wasn't a fan of the generalisations, I did think there was some pretty good analysis of the films and categories for this year.
I think you will find "Flight" is nominated for Writing - Original Screenplay for John Gatins. And his is an excellent story. He has basically been writing "Flight" for 15 years and never thought it would get to the screen, much less have Washington as the Oscar nominated lead.
Anne Hathaway and Daniel Day Lewis are locks. Argo is likely going to get Best Picture (ridiculous that Ben Affleck isn't up for Best Director). Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress are going to be the interesting ones.
Finally, not to be too picky, but its probably best to have something like this written by someone who has seen the films they are talking about.